Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Coastguard Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am, indeed, fortunate—and grateful—to have a chance this morning to raise in the House the issue of the future of the coastguard service. The coastguard service is the fourth of the main emergency services, along with the fire brigade, the ambulance service and the police. The service is osf a significant size, with 430 full-time officers and 3,100 volunteers grouped in 370 rescue companies, specialising in search techniques and cliff rescue.
Many constituencies have cause to be grateful to the coastguard service, not least my constituency of Gosport. I have a range of interests in the coastguard service. I have a coastguard station at Lee-on-the-Solent and a coastguard helicopter similarly located. I am a member of the management committee of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. In my constituency, we have a rescue service called GAFIRS, which is an acronym for the Gosport and Fareham inshore rescue service, and I maintain contact, as disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests, with Bristow Helicopters, which operates the helicopter service in Lee-on-the-Solent.
The coastguard service is international. From Aberdeen, the coastguard service monitors the northern North sea oil and gasfields, with all the problems and difficulties that occasionally occur there. At Yarmouth, the service has a station that monitors the southern North sea oil and gasfields. At Dover, a station operates the channel navigation information service and at Falmouth, the service has a worldwide liaison centre with an international search and rescue station, which maintains contact around the world. It may not be generally known that when the Achille Lauro caught fire off Somalia in east Africa, the rescue of those on board was co-ordinated from Falmouth and Stavanger in Norway. The coastguard service is a major international business.
Those who are engaged in the coastguard service tend to be modest; they may be under-recognised. That is emphasised by the tragic case of the Green Lily, which was lost off the east coast of Shetland last week. A journalist who observed the scene told of the rescue from a helicopter, when a winchman was lowered to rescue the crew. He said that the winchman was, indeed, a hero who had rescued the crew in terrifying conditions. He wrote:
The wind was so strong it was hard to stand up. Sheets of blinding salt spray constantly burst over the cliffs … the helicopter wobbled noticeably just as the ship did a violent roll

from side to side. I thought the rotors were going to hit the masts … The winchman was a hero. The conditions were terrifying, particularly after the ship hit the rocks. But he stayed on board until he'd made sure everyone else were safe. He really did give his life for those crewmen.
The winchman was William Deacon. His son, Alan Deacon, later commented:
People need to understand what job my Dad and others like him do. It is not fully appreciated or rewarded. They go to rescues irrespective of adverse weather conditions and their own personal safety. There may be 14 or so men risking their lives to save just one person.
He went on to complain about press intrusion. I hope that the family will not feel that it is an intrusion when I say that the House and the country stand in awe of such courage and dedication. We thank the coastguard service for providing 24-hour cover regardless of risk, discomfort and inconvenience. That 24-hour cover means that the service is ready now, it will be ready on Christmas day and it will be ready in filthy weather on February nights off the rocky coasts of Scotland, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight.
The service cannot stand still. Communications have improved. The coastguard service is moving from an analogue to a digital communications system. I recognise that change is inevitable in a dynamic service. We must also acknowledge the situation in other countries Canada has three coastguard stations, in Halifax, Victoria and Trenton; there are only three coastguard stations on the east coast of the United States of America; Norway manages its service with two coastguard stations; Germany has one and France has six. We have 21. Change may be appropriate, but the question is what change should be made and how it should be controlled and managed.
The five-year strategy put forward by the Government on 17 November was badly mishandled from start to finish. I have tabled parliamentary questions and ascertained the facts and the chronology of what happened. On 7 October, a Coastguard information pack—a black and gold publication containing loose-leaf sheets—went to the printers minus two question and answer sheets on station closures. On 15 October, the information pack order was complete. On 20 October it was released to the press. Not surprisingly, at about that time speculation began about the future of the Coastguard and possible changes to be made by the Government.
On 3 November, I tabled priority questions about coastguard provision in the Solent spithead area. At about that time, hon. Members representing Scottish seats sought a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), to ask about the future of the service. It is a matter of record in Hansard that the Minister said:
It is not within my knowledge that meetings have been requested."—[Official Report, 17 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 80.]
I do not know how a request from hon. Members can fail to be received by a Minister, but that is not my concern.
On 6 November, the Minister replied to my question, saying that the chief executive of the Coastguard would write to me. That detailed letter, dated 5 November, simply listed the current coastguard provision on the south coast. It gave no hint of any change. I wrote back on 8 November, asking the chief executive of the Coastguard for an assurance that there was no current intention to make changes. I did not receive a reply until 20 November, after the changes had been announced.
Even more dramatically, on Wednesday 12 November my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) asked the Minister a question in the Standing Committee considering the Draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Maritime Differential Correction Systems) Order 1997. He said:
Can she tell us, therefore, why her Department is considering turning the two coastguard stations at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent into one?
The Minister replied:
I am bemused by the question. … The question that he has just posed is, however, empty speculation. … There is no foundation for what he said and he must be aware that speculation in the press has raised justifiable concern. His question merely fans the flames of scaremongering."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 12 November 1997; c. 8–10.]
I have ascertained from parliamentary questions that on Friday 14 November—two days later—the two-page supplement to the five-year strategy document was printed by the Department and added to the information packs. On 12 November, we were told that there was no foundation for any allegation that the Department might be considering merging or collocating the two stations. Hon. Members always tell the truth in the House—and Ministers certainly do—so what the Minister said is obviously true. It means that she had not even considered putting the two stations together on 12 November. By 14 November, not only had Ministers decided to do that; they had printed the document saying that the stations would be collocated. What an exciting day 13 November was in Whitehall. Not only did Humphrey the cat go missing from 10 Downing street, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which had never considered putting the two coastguard stations together, suddenly decided to do so and printed the announcement the following day.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister has told the world on television that the words that we all complain of do not mean what we all know they mean. When a Minister gets it so wrong, the first thing that she or he should do is say sorry to the House. Then perhaps we can move on to the substantive issues.

Mr. Viggers: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that that word will be included in the Minister's speech. We are dealing with an appalling saga, in which the facts speak for themselves.
However, that is not the most important point in the debate. The coastguard service is more important than Government bungling. We must consider what change is appropriate. The Select Committee on Transport considered the service in 1994–95. It came to the conclusion that coastguard facilities and services were thinly stretched. The report pointed out that between 1986 and 1993, the number of responses undertaken by the Coastguard had risen 80 per cent., from 5,300 to 9,610, and that the number of rescues in that period had gone up 91 per cent., from 8,960 to 17,110. That stretching of facilities was thought to be mainly due to the increase in pleasure boat use—yachting and motor boats. That is not diminishing, and may well be increasing, so the stretching of facilities will also increase.
Will there be more or fewer coastguards as a result of the five-year strategic review? The Minister's letter of 17 November, when the statement on the future of the service was eventually dragged out of her, says that there will be more coastguards than there were a decade ago. That is a selective use of facts. The truth is that the number of coastguard officers will be reduced by 78. That is recognised by the Chief Coastguard, Mr. Astbury. On 17 November, he said:
We hope the staff reductions will bring savings which will contribute to—or even completely offset—the cost of this new investment in communication systems.
The Chief Coastguard states that there will be reductions in personnel expenditure, which may pay for equipment.
What will be the effects of putting the two stations of Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent on the same site? The justification is stated to be that the Portland station is in a grade 2 listed building, making it difficult to carry out the necessary changes to ensure that the station has the facilities that are now required, and that the Lee-on-the-Solent station is in a former large house on the sea, in what was formerly HMS Daedalus. It is suggested that collocating the two stations in new premises will result in greater efficiency.
The Government are riding two horses. They are saying that there will be collocation, not merger, but also that there will be some possibility of using staff from one station in the other. In other words, there will be a brick wall in the middle of the large building, with the Portland station on one side and the Lee-on-the-Solent station on the other, but there will be an opportunity for staff to go from one side to the other.
I am absolutely certain that it is not intended to continue the present staffing level in the longer term. At Lee-on-the-Solent, there is one district controller, one deputy district controller, one operations manager, four watch managers, 12 watch officers and eight coastguard watch assistants. At Portland, there is one district controller, one deputy district controller, four watch managers, 10 watch officers and eight coastguard watch assistants.
One does not have to be a partner of McKinsey management consultants to know that, if the two stations are collocated, there is no intention of having in the longer term two district controllers, two deputy district controllers, and so on. One does not need to be an expert to know that collocating is obviously intended to save money by reducing staff. That is self-evident.
As to where the collocation should be, Poole has been mentioned—although that may just be because the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is based there. Southampton has also been mentioned. The coastguards to whom I have talked say that it is most important that the coastguard stations are located where those working can see and sense the elements. They feel that, if they are in a tower block, they cannot have the same feel for rescue services.
It will be very difficult to maintain the proper age profile in the coastguard service if there are no redundancies and the reduction of 78 posts is achieved entirely by natural wastage. Maintaining a good age profile at a time of redundancy is a major problem for any firm, any of the armed forces or for the coastguard service. The Government should be looking at the salary structure and pay and conditions of coastguards. I wonder how many hon. Members would believe that a watch


assistant, who works a 42-hour week gross—a 35-hour week net with rest periods—is paid £6,984 a year. It is not surprising that one coastguard station has had a staff turnover at that grade of 50 per cent. in one year. I very much hope that the Government will comment on the pay and conditions of the coastguards and give an assurance that their service will be properly recognised by their pay and conditions.
I should like to put some questions to the Minister, who I am pleased is in her place. Why did not she make a statement in the House on the future of the coastguard service? It is a fine and important service, and I should have thought that it merited a statement at the Dispatch Box. That would have reflected the importance that the Government place on the Coastguard and given hon. Members an opportunity to ask Ministers questions— instead of having to drag one Minister here this morning or table written questions.
Is the five-year strategy a genuine five-year plan for the Coastguard, or is it merely the bit that has been pulled out of the Minister and the Government so far? It is, I am afraid, an open secret that the National Audit Office has carried out a study of the coastguard service, which has not so far been published. The study apparently says that the cost of maintaining multiple coastguard stations is rather high. Therefore, the Government may well be very shortly faced with an NAO report that recommends further changes to the coastguard service. How confident can anyone be that the five-year strategy as announced so far is in fact the true five-year strategy? Is there a hidden agenda of further changes?
What will the Minister do about pay and conditions of coastguards, to ensure better staff retention? What consultation procedures are proposed? The Chief Coastguard said in his press conference that the four stations—two in Scotland, and Tyne Tees and Liverpool—will definitely close "no matter what". What is the point of having a consultation procedure? Is there to be one at all? We are told that the consultation procedure that preceded the five-year strategy was an internal matter only. Is there to be any external discussion? Will the coastguard service, the Government or the Minister take any notice of anything that anybody says?
Will the Minister reconfirm that the helicopters at Lee-on-the-Solent and Portland will remain there despite the fact that the coastguard stations are to be collocated? If she reconfirms that, will she also reconfirm that, this being Wednesday, she will not on Friday publish a statement that says that the Government are to change their mind again?
I take considerable pride in having attracted the coastguard station to Lee-on-the-Solent in my constituency. I suggested to the Chief Coastguard some years ago that the location of HMS Daedalus, as it then was, should be examined as appropriate for coastguard services. It is perfectly located in the centre of the south coast; it is at the centre of the busiest shipping and yachting area in the United Kingdom. If a rebuild of the Lee-on-the-Solent and Portland coastguard stations is required, there is land available at Lee-on-the-Solent which would be perfect for collocated premises if the Government wished to proceed in such a manner.
I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I know that a number of hon. Members want to speak, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member is correct; a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I therefore remind hon. Members to restrict their speeches, so that everyone may contribute to the debate. I call Mrs. Ray Michie. She chaired a Standing Committee on behalf of the House from yesterday until almost 5 o'clock this morning, and I think that she deserves to be called now.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this most important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on having secured it. He has spelt out his concerns about the Government's proposals on the future of the coastguard services. I am sure that, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will highlight the consequences of the closure of the station in his constituency and describe the dangerous waters surrounding it.
I, too, pay my tribute and that of my constituents— who greatly value their coastguards—to the emergency services that were involved in the rescue of the crew of the Green Lily. It was with a deep sense of shock that we heard of the tragic loss of life of Winchman Bill Deacon after he had helped to save the lives of the 10 crew. He displayed the most incredible bravery, and our deepest sympathy goes out to his grieving family and friends.
The Government's proposal to close the Oban coastguard station in my constituency has come as a great blow to the town of Oban and the whole of Argyll. It plays a key role in maritime safety on an extensive coast and its many islands, and is pivotal in its co-ordinating role in search and rescue, which can involve lifeboats—it covers seven lifeboat stations—the police and mountain rescue. It has built up a wealth of local knowledge, expertise and skills, overseeing an area that is well known for treacherous tides, stormy conditions and sudden changes in weather. The rescue services know each other, trust each other, work as a team and have confidence in and depend on the coastguards in many a dangerous situation at sea.
There has been a huge increase in maritime traffic in recent years, with a large number of pleasure craft encouraged to the area by the local enterprise company and the marketing group, Sail Scotland, as such traffic contributes considerably to the local economy. There has been an expansion in inshore fishing. Large numbers of divers visit the area all year round, and ferries constantly ply between islands and the mainland.
At the same time, three of the four customs offices in the Argyll-Lochaber area are being closed, with a reduction of 22 to 26 staff. Although the coastguards are not involved in anti-smuggling activities, we know that they can be called on for help by customs officers when they are chasing drug dealers on the high seas, where safety is paramount. The Minister will no doubt tell us that significant investment will be made in communications, but all the sophisticated technology


in the world cannot take the place of local knowledge. I will believe that when I see it. The area in which I live has many black spots and is unable to get television channels. Mobile phones do not work, and even my pager does not work when I am on the islands.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Lady has put her finger on the real issue, which is local knowledge and the loss of it, if staff are cut. Does she remember, as I do, the last time that the banner, "Don't sink the coastguard", was unfurled outside the House of Commons some eight years ago? Exactly the same argument was made about technology versus staff and local knowledge. The person most vociferous was the then Labour spokesman, now the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the hon. Lady share my regret that his attitudes and, no doubt, those of his junior Minister, have undergone such a transformation in the past eight years?

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a pertinent point. I remember that time, and I am only sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here for the debate today.
At the Oban coastguard station, 23 jobs will go. The Minister probably thinks that that is not many, but it is a serious loss to a town such as Oban. We shall be told that the coastguards will be offered early retirement, redundancy packages and relocation. However, many of the coastguards in Oban do not want to relocate, especially those with children at school and husbands and wives at work.
I have received many telephone calls, petitions and letters on the subject, and I shall give the House a flavour of them. One of the great worries is the confusion about place names. Many Gaelic names up the west coast of Scotland are replicated in several areas and on the islands. I have known confusion to occur when fire brigades have been called out. On one occasion, the fire brigade thought that it had to go to the Isle of Jura when it was needed at a place called Duror on mainland.
I received a letter from the Caledonian Boat Owners Association, which stated:
Many of our members regularly sail the waters around Oban and find the service provided as being very reassuring and extremely efficient … It is very comforting to know that our leisure activities are being so effectively monitored"—
by the Oban coastguard station. Another letter reads:
I am horrified at the idea of closing Oban C. G. as I know from long personal experience how vital it is that the coastguards involved in any incident have detailed local knowledge.
If the last coastguard station in Argyll goes, local people will feel a loss of confidence, that their defences are down and that they are left vulnerable. Can the Minister confirm that the coastguards face a funding crisis and that, in order to fund new technology—in which we still have little faith—stations have to be closed and real people lost to the area? I know that Argyll and Bute council has invited her to visit and see for herself. She would be very welcome, and I hope that she will accept that offer and rethink the closure. We need our coastguard station in Oban.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I grateful to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for raising the subject this morning, because it is very important. When the Transport Select Committee in the previous Parliament chose to investigate the coastguard service, it was because we regarded it as an urgent and important subject. My hon. Friend the Minister may feel that there are not many coastguards in Crewe; nevertheless, we are aware of the need for such an emergency service.
I am a little irritated that Opposition Members seem to have chosen to suggest that decisions on the coastguard service were taken only by the present Government. If I have a criticism of the present Government and the Minister, it is that the decisions were taken in 1996 and, apparently, we felt that the reorganisation was so advanced that we could do little to change it. Indeed, when we chased the matter with Ministers in the previous Government, we received astonishingly little support from hon. Members from other parties. I am delighted that they have now changed their attitude.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not wish to get into an argument with the hon. Lady about who supported whom, but David Harris and I did much work on the issue. I am sure that she will agree that the increase of 200 people who we are told have been added to the coastguard stations is, in fact, a decrease in the number of people doing the same job. People are being taken from the coast watch stations to the control stations, and we are now told that that justifies another cut of nearly 100 people.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I long ago learned to be suspicious of agencies that gave me assurances that the changes that they were introducing would not necessarily damage the personnel. Things have a nasty habit of turning out very differently.
I believe the Chief Coastguard, Mr. Astbury, the head of the coastguard service, when he writes in his five-year strategy:
I should also like to emphasise … that the strategy announced is my vision … for the Service into the 21st century based upon sound operational principles".
The difficulty is that someone has to create a balance between good back-up services, high-quality equipment and the use of individual people. Coastguards are people. The fundamental issue this morning is that the coastguard service can have the best information in the world, provided by the best equipment, but it will not do its job unless it has people to interpret the information and to go out and change the situation at sea.
The four stations listed for closure are a case in point. Every one is near an exceptionally dangerous stretch of water or one that has other added problems. For example, the fishing fleet in Peterhead will be affected by the closure. Liverpool has to deal with Morecambe bay, the gasfield, and some of the most dangerous mudflats in the world. All those factors impinge on the safety of ordinary people. For example, the enormous growth in leisure sailing in my lifetime has created something new. Many more people now put their lives at risk, some with astonishing irresponsibility, for which the coastguards cannot be held responsible. However, unless we intend to stand by and let people drown themselves, we must be capable of saving them.
If I have a criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister this morning, it is minute but real. Faced with the difficulties caused by underfunding—the coastguard service is underfunded—the Government should have been a little more brutal and made it clear that what happened arose because the previous Government created a free-standing agency but did not give it the money and back-up to do an efficient job. That should have been said more loudly at the same time as the Government said that they intended to change the situation. The reality is that, whatever the words used, the five-year strategy will mean that many people at the sharp end will go. We shall lose coastguards, and although the auxiliaries do a sterling job, many of them are carrying responsibilities that some of us would like transferred back to people at a different level.
There is a worry about whether the reliance on high-quality equipment may occasionally overcome the commonsense need for straightforward, ordinary traditional equipment. I have a letter from a gentleman at Lochinver Transport, who himself served as an auxiliary coastguard for many years, setting out in considerable detail what happened when he reported to Stornoway
a boat with a single occupant setting off a distress Orange Smoke Flare near Scourie village in North West Sutherland …very close to rocks, and with only minutes to go before darkness".
The letter sets out a series of circumstances that, happily, turned out reasonably. Obviously, the boat got away. The point that that letter raises is that reliance on the helicopter was such that apparently there were considerable gaps between the original report, the arrival of the helicopter and the calling out of the local lifeboat.
Those are all worrying circumstances. I do not expect the Minister to answer all the questions today, but that example shows an increasing reliance on high-tech equipment to do a job that is sometimes better done by individual coastguards using much more traditional equipment.
I have considerable reservations about the combination of some of the stations and the reliance on high-tech equipment in that process. One operator listening to several channels may have a problem if a boat has high-powered equipment capable of drowning out lower-level signals. That is not a comfortable position, and could put enormous pressure on the operator, who might feel that he or she was missing individual calls. All those problems inevitably arise when fewer people do the job at a much greater stretch.
I do not want to take too much time, because I know many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall finish by stressing my belief that the provision of emergency services is, in the final analysis, a responsibility not only of the House of Commons and of Parliament in general but of every one of us.
Emergency service personnel put their lives on the line daily, many for miserable rates of pay. Some are prepared to go on doing that, provided that they see a clear statement of a future in which their service is properly funded, they are properly appreciated and there is not so much reliance on re-equipment and changing the numbers.
Auxiliaries do not replace full-time coastguards. Full timers work very long shifts in a particular way, three at a time, and if any pressure is put on the arrangements by sickness, holidays or any movement, the station will be tightly stretched. When we talk about the number of people involved in the service, we must be aware of that.
We must know that those people work under constant pressure hour after hour. They may have long periods of boredom, but when they are required to take decisions they are required to take them immediately, and people's lives depend on those decisions. They must not make mistakes. That means that we must give them the back-up to do the job, in the form not only of high-quality equipment—although certainly that is essential—but of people. Coastguards must know that they have enough colleagues, enough equipment and enough money to run the service properly.
The previous Government were not prepared to provide that. They set up the independent agency because they thought that they could then cut the coastguard service without anybody noticing, and say, "We are just modernising the whole thing." We were not taken in by that then, and we shall not be taken in by it now.
I know that we do not need to drag my hon. Friend the Minister to the House of Commons. She comes skipping in here like a 21-year-old, which might be unlovable if she were not such a fantastically good Minister. None the less, I must tell her one thing we inherited a mess and we must sort it out. That may not be possible today, or even tomorrow, but we need the hope that we shall not go along with all the batty ideas that were left to us—all the incompetence, the corner-cutting and the idiocies which were left behind. I know what she has to deal with, and I rely on her to deal with it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House again that we have little time and that several hon. Members want to speak. Unless contributions are very brief, many will be disappointed.

Mr. James Wallace: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on obtaining this important debate, and I join him and other hon. Members who have spoken in paying tribute to the crew of the helicopter that rescued men from the Green Lily last week off my constituency— in particular to the winchman, William Deacon, who sacrificed his own life in saving the lives of others.
I do not want to concentrate too much on the general strategy underlying the proposals that have been made; I shall concentrate instead on the issue as it affects my constituency. As has already been explained, Pentland coastguard station is to close by the end of 1999 if the strategy goes through.
The hon. Member for Gosport talked about the way in which the issue has been handled. I happened to know, because of a report in The Herald on 29 October, that there were suspicions that the Pentland and Oban stations were to close, so I telephoned the chief executive of the agency, who said that he could not comment because a report was already with Ministers awaiting a decision. If the decision was made on 13 October, the report must have been lying on desks for some time.
I accept what the Minister says about not having been aware of the letter sent to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)— although I wish that, when my secretary telephoned to arrange


a meeting, her officials had said that they could not find the letter. Only at the fourth time of asking for a meeting was it requested that a copy be faxed through. However, that is water under the bridge and we are now dealing with the real situation.
Far more important is the letter that the chief executive of the Coastguard agency sent me on 8 April. I had written to him because of press speculation that Pentland coastguard station was under threat, and he replied:
The Focus for Change review made a number of recommendations for the restructuring of the service, but closure of stations was not one of the options considered …
Therefore, I am able to confirm therefore that there are no proposals to close Pentland coastguard station, neither is the station being downgraded, but will continue to function in its present form.
I hope I have been able to reassure regarding the future of the Pentland station".
That letter begged a series of questions, and I hope that the Minister can answer them today. What has happened since 8 April? There has been no major breakthrough in telecommunications. We are told that the strategy is underpinned by investment in telecommunications, but there have been no new developments capable of changing things.
The Minister sent a letter to Members affected, saying:
The strategy … builds upon the concepts introduced over the past 18 months following the Focus for Change review".
Yet we know, because the chief executive of the Coastguard agency told me, that that review did not involve station closures. So why does the strategy involve station closures?
When was the decision made that at least some stations would close? When did that idea first enter the agenda? When, specifically, was it decided that Pentland should be one of the stations to close? That is important, because the staff at Pentland, after suffering years of speculation and uncertainty about their future, saw a copy the letter sent to me on 8 April and were reassured. They took the reassurance that Mr. Harris offered, but it has now been proved that that reassurance was worthless.
When a public servant offers such reassurance in April and overturns it in October, the public—not least those employed in the coastguard service—require a full and detailed explanation, and I hope the Minister can give us part of one today.
When there was some restructuring in senior management, watch managers were appointed at all but the four stations now due for closure—Pentland, Oban, Tyne Tees and Liverpool. There was a suspicion even then that there was an agenda for closure, and that has now been proved right.
Another problem is the lack of any consultation with those employed in the service— at the cliff-top, as it were. It seems to have been a desk job. Certainly, the police in my constituency were dismayed that there was no consultation with them, because they have formed valued links with the coastguard. They value the fact that they can go into the coastguard station. This is an erosion of the protective services around our coasts, which cannot give us any confidence.
At Pentland, there are 11 mobile grade officers and six coastguard watch assistants. The hon. Member for Gosport gave the annual earnings. I am told that a

coastguard watch assistant is paid £3.11 an hour. I shall be interested to know what happens to the budget of the agency when the national minimum wage is introduced. That is a ridiculously low amount for a responsible job. The six assistants at the Pentland station were recruited locally earlier this year. I think that most, or even all six, are local people, who will not be disposed to uprooting their families and moving. On Monday—one week after the Minister made her announcement—some of them were sitting the final part of their exams to become qualified coastguard watch assistants. They were sitting the exams, knowing that their jobs were about to be axed.
The important point is that we will lose a lot of local knowledge. The Coastguard agency says that local knowledge is important and that it will not be lost. The deputy regional controller of the Coastguard for the north-east of Scotland, talking to my local newspaper The Orcadian said:
Local knowledge is a very important part of coastguard work, but to say it is lost would not be true. That local knowledge is being maintained by Shetland and Aberdeen. Aberdeen has regional responsibility for the whole area anyway and their level of knowledge is pretty good anyway. It would be a case of enhancing local knowledge. That is not a concern".
Local knowledge comes about only by being there.

Dr. Liam Fox: By being local.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, by being local. We are talking about an area with lots of islands, headlands and exceptional tidal conditions. If people move from Pentland to Aberdeen or Shetland, they will carry that local knowledge with them, but it will be a diminishing asset because there will be no one there to renew it in years to come.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wallace: If I do not give way, I can finish my speech more quickly and the hon. Gentleman may have a chance to speak.
Local knowledge will be lost, which is serious. On 18 October 1994, the Select Committee on Transport, to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred, took evidence from the previous Chief Coastguard, Commander Ancona. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), he said:
local knowledge should not be under-estimated; hence my comment that I feel the number of rescue centres we have at the moment meets the requirement, and any reduction might well have an effect on the service we provide.
The former Chief Coastguard, with all his experience, thought that a reduction in the then number of coastguard stations, which included Pentland, Oban, Tyne Tees, Liverpool, Portland and Solent,
might well have an effect on the service we provide.
That is the concern that other hon. Members and I are expressing.
Inshore fishermen regularly telephone the coastguard to tell them where they are going and to ask for weather forecasts. I do not believe that they will telephone a stranger in Lerwick or Aberdeen when, for many years, they have had that close connection with the local coastguard station.
I have never yet been given any explanation of why Pentland has been singled out. What are the criteria? I tabled a question to the Minister last week and received a fairly lengthy answer, but it did not say why Pentkland had been chosen. Is it the number of incidents? I accept that we do not have the same number of incidents involving people lying on lilos and floating out to sea. The coastguard does an important job in rescuing them. However, last week alone a Faroese fishing vessel, the Saeborg, got into distress off Orkney and required the attention of the Pentland coastguard, as did the Minoan Bay, with 24 crew, for about 40 hours when it was in distress in the waters off Orkney. Those will go down as two incidents, but they were very demanding incidents. Had Pentland been closed and the Lerwick station been dealing with those incidents, it would have been doing so when the Green Lily got into difficulty.
For all the telecommunications in the world, one still needs people to operate telecommunications systems. We are saying that the people must have local knowledge and must not be overstretched. It is clear from the Minister's letter that the Government are looking for job savings and I do not believe that we can adequately substitute telecommunications for people. Of course, telecommunications are important and we want the best, but they are only as good as the people operating them and that is our concern about the proposals. I hope that they are not non-negotiable, as the Chief Coastguard said, because a serious mistake will be made if those stations close.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I want to be constructive and I shall raise three points. I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for enabling this debate to take place. Portsmouth is the major conurbation next to Gosport and it is a centre of maritime activity.
The first of my three points concerns what is already happening and raising the profile of the coastguard service. All hon. Members who have spoken have done that constructively, so the profile of the job is being raised. Secondly, I must flag up the danger of any loss of coastguard service, particularly helicopter search and rescue, in the Gosport-Portsmouth area. Thirdly, I want to ensure that the trade unions who represent the staff—a large number of staff in the service are in unions—are fully consulted about the procedures necessary for redundancy, as the strategy for the five-year development plan evolves. It is no good merely consulting them afterwards. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that that will be done.
As everyone who has spoken has already raised the profile of the service and I want to cut my speech short, I shall go straight to my second point, which concerns raising the Portsmouth profile. There are 25 deaths from drowning in the Solent each year, which is 10 per cent. of all deaths through drowning around our coasts. Although the Solent appears to be placid—it is in the south and people use lilos—it is a dangerous place. Our helicopter services are scrambled 1,000 times a year and are extremely busy. The helicopters can get to people in distress in the Solent in about two minutes from Lee-on-the-Solent. If the service is moved anywhere else, the distance and time will be critical for life saving.
Portsmouth, as most hon. Members know—my hon. Friend the Minister was there recently—is a very busy place and it will get busier. As far as we are concerned,

it is the centre of the Navy—I apologise to people in other areas, but it is the heart of the Navy. We also have a major international ferry port and an enormous number of yachting activities, with Cowes and all the rest. Our millennium scheme will increase the number, because it concentrates on maritime activity. Whenever anything happens on the sea, whether it is Britannia coming back or ships leaving to go to war, an enormous number of people go on the water to see the activities and to participate, increasing the potential for and the danger of accidents.
The debate in 1996 was rather stunted. Portsmouth city council raised the ogre of losing the services. We had a battle on our hands, but we eventually won, only to realise that that ogre might be raised once more because of this strategy. We have to raise the flag against it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that those points will be taken into consideration when decisions on the strategy are eventually taken.
I am still trying to live down my past of being an eternal opposition person, a great shop steward in Parliament, and of attacking the Front Benchers— my usual tactic of attacking management. I have grown up since then and I am trying to be constructive. I hope that the urgency of getting the agency and the people who are drawing up the strategy to amend and change it will be realised. We must modify it in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Now we are in government, we must have a different attitude. We must get our Ministers to modify what the agency would have done under the previous Administration, which was much harder and tougher. Moving to agency status was one way of sorting things out—in a way we did not want them sorted out. I hope that, with an intelligent and sympathetic Minister, we will now get a better response.
Thirdly, I was impressed when I met trade union representatives today. I have been outside before with people waving banners and expressing anger, perhaps even wanting to kill people in here, but this morning people showed serious concern rather than anger. They are responsible and want to participate constructively.
The unions do not appear to have been drawn into the strategy so far; they should be, because they are the people on the ground with the knowledge, and they represent the people to whom Scottish Members referred today. Redundancies can be achieved, with proper consultation, without too much pain, by going through the proper channels. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will regard those as constructive points.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) mistakes his role he is a constituency Member and must fight whomever is in government. The previous Government wanted to take away my helicopter at Portland; I fought them every step of the way and we now have a five-year commitment to that helicopter. We can fight for our beliefs, regardless of party.
Untruths have been told in press releases, suggesting that the change is not a cut in manpower. The previous Government decided to close coast watch stations, and in my constituency volunteers have replaced the guards whom they removed. People are being paid £3 an hour to


do the work in control centres. That was the previous strategy, and we are now told that 200 people are to replace the 90-odd in the four stations that are to close. We are not being told the truth about what is happening with the two stations that are to be collocated.
The Minister said in Committee that she was baffled by my question about merging the two coastguard stations at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent. Her press statement two days later said:
The two stations to be combined are Solent and Portland".
She should apologise for misleading me, because I spent the weekend telling the press that they were wrong, because she had assured me that the merger was not going ahead.
We tend to hear about the glamorous side of the Coastguard—rescues and so on—but I have been amazed by the volume of paper that I have received from trade unionists and people working in the system. In response to a survey, someone wrote:
Anyone who works for an organisation that is on the whole poorly paid, under equipped, understaffed and undermined through a combination of short term savings measures, crisis management, withholding and massaging statistics"—
that is certainly what is going on here—
liberal interpretation of policy and guidelines at Regional level and lack of public awareness. Is lets face it, always going to be the subject of stress and a deterioration of general health.
The response goes on to get even worse, but I will not delay the House.
Let us consider directly what is happening at the stations at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent. It would be madness for the Government to collocate them on a single site if there were not some savings to be made in staff. Is it right to reduce the number of staff? There are about 600 coastguards and towards 100 people are to be removed. That sounds like a lot of people, but a 24-hour watch, seven days a week, comes to 168 hours. Dividing that by the 42 hours means four people for every post, and there has to be another person to cover holidays and sickness, and probably another for training. That means about 100 people on duty at any one time, and those people have to monitor all the channels.
There are more and more ways for people to communicate with the Coastguard in a much better way. In the Navy, radio watch is kept with one person to one circuit; in the Coastguard in the past, it was one person to two circuits; now we are moving towards one person monitoring seven or eight circuits. That, frankly, cannot be right.
I am astounded by Ministers saying that it is all to do with bad buildings at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent; that is absolute nonsense. A whole naval air station is to close in the next couple of years. If the Government want the coastguards to move into a fully equipped and perfect new purpose-built building from their wonderful listed building by Weymouth harbour, that is fine; but it is nonsense for the Minister to go on television, as she did this weekend, and say that there are no job implications in merging two 25-man or 26-man stations.
People have complete disbelief in what their managers are saying and doing. We need to have meetings with Ministers and with the heads of the Coastguard. It was

very nice of them to send us colour photographs of themselves— we can put them up on banners and decry what they are doing— but we need assurances that they will hold consultations and change their mind. There is no money to be saved in those moves, but there are certainly lives to be lost.

Mr. Joe Benton: I speak on behalf of the many Merseyside Members and, more importantly, the staff employed at the coastguard station at Crosby, Liverpool, as well as the concerned general public on Merseyside.
I could not agree more with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the new technology, which has not yet been put into practice. I do not intend what I say to be a criticism of the Minister or of former Ministers.
As recently as last Friday, at the request of the staff at the Crosby station, I went to discuss the problem with them. On the instruction of senior management, I was not allowed on the premises, which rather upset me. The background seems to be shrouded in mystery and secrecy; it is not open enough.
I spoke to people with genuine knowledge of the maritime situation in Merseyside, in the port of Liverpool, who have been skilled for many years in rescue and safety operations, which they have carried out with great success. They cannot understand why a station at the gateway to the Atlantic and the western world is to be closed, when all the indications are that there will be increased maritime traffic over the next few years. They are completely puzzled by the decision to transfer the station to Holyhead.

Maria Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by closing the Liverpool station and assigning to Holyhead an additional 700 miles of coastal waters, covering increasing traffic and complex waters in Liverpool, we may be leaving users of the sea and coast in increased danger?

Mr. Benton: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the view that has been expressed from all maritime quarters on Merseyside.
I referred to the secrecy, or alleged secrecy, because there is no doubt that the experts on the ground have been complaining for a long time—even when the Isle of Man station was closed, putting an additional burden on the Crosby coastal station—about the complete lack of consultation.
I think that there is a genuine case for reconsidering the situation, and perhaps the entire service. I am making an appeal for a serious look at the situation that may prevail on Merseyside.
I do not want to be a voice of doom; I am certainly not a Luddite. I predict, however, that the voice of unease which is registering itself will swell in volume between now and 2000.I beg the Minister, on behalf of Merseyside Members of Parliament and of all the maritime interests on Merseyside, to think again. If she does, we shall co-operate with her.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing the debate and raising a subject of great concern to Members of all parties. It is a most important subject, on which my hon. Friend spoke knowledgeably and powerfully. It is of concern not just to his constituents but to the nation at large.
I am glad to begin by joining in the tributes that have been paid this morning to the courage and commitment of the Coastguard. Especially in our thoughts at the moment are and his family.
Several speakers have made clear the depth and breadth of the anxieties felt about the Government's proposals. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made an eloquent contribution; the very fact that she is still here is a fine example of her stamina after that all-night sitting in Committee. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) began rather dangerously by claiming that it was Conservative Members who had switched their views on the matter. She made no reference to the much more dramatic switch in roles by the Deputy Prime Minister, who used to be a campaigner for, and defender of, the Coastguard but who appears in those roles no longer.
The hon. Lady went on to ask a number of questions about policy which I hope that the Minister will answer. So, too, did the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who asked some very disturbing questions. That made it all the more regrettable that, apparently owing to some mishap in the Minister's office, the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to meet the Minister to discuss the issue. That seems dangerously close to a breach of the usual courtesies extended by Ministers to hon. Members—

Mr. Wallace: indicated dissent.

Mr. Yeo: Well, I hope at least that the private office will take note of what appears to have been a breakdown in communications.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has raised understandable anxieties. He referred to the Minister's response to him in a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 12 November, when the Minister accused him of scaremongering. It was only a matter of days before the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend turned out to be rather well founded. Indeed, it looks as though my hon. Friend's comments were a good deal nearer the truth than were the Minister's. I therefore hope that the Minister will have the grace and honesty to admit that she was mistaken when accusing my hon. Friend of scaremongering; and that she will take this opportunity to withdraw her accusation.

Dr. Fox: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that no Scottish Office Minister is present at this debate, which is of major importance to Scotland? Under the Conservative Government, a Scottish Office Minister would at least have attended as a sign of courtesy and of Scotland's interest.

Mr. Yeo: That is an important point. I have no doubt that the previous Government would have ensured that

a Scottish Office Minister was present to hear the views of the House—but this Government's lack of interest in the views of the House is a point to which I shall return.
The hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) also expressed their concerns. It is clear that the Minister has not persuaded her Back Benchers of the merits of this proposal. Not a single Member in the House this morning has spoken or even intervened in support of what the Government propose to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport rightly identified two key aspects: first, the substance of the proposed changes to the Coastguard; secondly, the manner in which those changes have been announced to Parliament. As to the changes, the Opposition's view remains the same as it was when we were in government—that safety should be the paramount consideration at all times, and that nothing must be done that could conceivably jeopardise it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is also the Government's view.
If changes are to be made, they must be made with the aim of strengthening the Coastguard. Nothing should be done that puts the current coastguard cover for emergencies at risk. The Minister must realise that the way that the Government's policy has been dragged out into public view has understandably raised anxieties that she must now allay. Many people fear that the proposed changes may indeed put lives at risk.
Conservative Members of course recognise that changes must take place. The Coastguard cannot and should not stand still. It is only right that the latest technology should be used. The Coastguard will inevitably be different in the 21st century from what it has been in the 20th, but that difference must be in how it operates, not in its effectiveness. Of course we welcome the prospect of new investment, but the decision must not be a smokescreen behind which operations are quietly cut, staff are sacked, experience and training are wasted and effectiveness is reduced.
The House will need to be convinced that the Government's proposals guarantee the necessary protection in the future, and that safety is not being compromised in a hasty bid to cut costs for some other purpose.
The sad truth is that we are learning week after week that this is a Government who cannot be trusted to keep their word. We heard it in the July Budget, with the introduction of the £5 billion smash-and-grab raid on pension funds. We heard it earlier in the summer with the introduction of tuition fees, and with their broken promises on waiting lists and class sizes. The list of broken promises grows week by week but—even by the standards of this untrustworthy Government, whose contempt for Parliament is their most notable characteristic—the manner in which this decision has been announced was absolutely disgraceful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport set out the day-by-day sequence of events which amounts to nothing more than a sequence of evasions. Will the Minister explain this morning her role at each stage of this sorry saga, from 7 October, when the incomplete Coastguard information pack was sent to the printers, to 14 November, when the truth finally emerged? If she does not have time to set out the detail in this debate,


will she write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of her letter in the Library? Above all, will she explain why she made no statement to the House of Commons at any stage in the process? Was that because she was afraid, because she did not know what was going on or because she— like so many other Ministers—simply does not care about the House of Commons?
On the day we have learned that the amount of taxpayers' money being swallowed up by the salaries of political advisers to Ministers has risen by 44 per cent. since 1 May, we might ask Ministers whether they are getting value for money from all those advisers.
Perhaps the Minister simply hoped to hide behind the Chief Coastguard in this matter. The use of the Chief Coastguard to make a politically sensitive and controversial announcement of policy is extremely dubious. Did the Minister authorise that procedure herself, or was the decision taken by the Secretary of State? Why was this method of announcement chosen? I believe that Madam Speaker herself has expressed concern about how the House has been treated over this issue.
The picture that emerges suggests that here is a Minister who is not on top of the policy for which she is responsible, who is fearful of engaging in debate, who knows that she has something to hide. This morning's debate is an opportunity for her to dispel that impression.
For a Government who boast of their willingness to make hard choices, this fumbling over a vital national service smacks of both incompetence and weakness. Will the Minister now—very belatedly—give the House a full, honest and clear account of her actions and of the Government's policy?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): In common with the whole House, I wish to associate myself with the tributes paid to Mr. Deacon, the helicopter winchman who gave his life in saving 10 lives from the Green Lily, and to the coxswain and crew of the Lerwick lifeboat, who, without hesitation—as is general throughout that great search and rescue service—risked their own lives to save those in danger on the sea.
I say to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that, far from being dragged to the House this morning, I welcome the opportunity offered by his Adjournment debate to reiterate the facts inherent in the five-year strategy that was announced and to lay the misinformation, disinformation, rumour and speculation that have been fuelled, in my opinion, from both within the Chamber and without. To all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate, I say that, if I do not answer all their individual questions this morning, I shall most certainly respond by letter.
The contribution from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) does not, in my view, warrant any sort of detailed response. That he, as a member of a former Government who subjected the Coastguard agency to a biannual roundabout of confusion and to constant pressure to maintain services, while reducing the levels of Government funding, should speak as he did is little short of disgraceful.
To touch briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), who was denied access to his local coastguard station, I say to him and all hon. Members that that was a gross mistake and it will not occur again—indeed, we would encourage all hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit their local coastguard stations.
What has emerged from the debate is that there is genuine confusion among many hon. Members as to what the five-year strategy contains. As we have stated, it is a multi-million pound investment in new digital technology: it is not in any way a method of reducing the human element, which is as vital as technology to the Coastguard service.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.
The Coastguard's communication service is currently based on analogue technology. That equipment is extremely difficult to maintain and is outliving its usefulness. It will inevitably have to be replaced and it will be replaced by new digital technology.
Another point raised by all hon. Members who have spoken is that they fear a lack of local knowledge. That point was especially highlighted by my hon. Friends in respect of the proposed closure of the co-ordination centre at Liverpool. I would point out to all hon. Members that the Coastguard is responsible for 10,000 miles of the United Kingdom's coastline and 1.25 million square miles of sea. Local knowledge is furnished to the co-ordination sub-centres by auxiliaries on our coasts—3,000 in all. There will be no reduction in the number of auxiliary coastguards, in watch commanders and helicopter services or in co-ordination and facilitation between our Coastguard and other search and rescue services such as the lifeboats.

Dr. Fox: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No— I regret that I do not have time to give way.
Let us return to the example of the coastline that is monitored by the Liverpool sub-centre. It stretches from Queensferry in north Wales to the Mull of Galloway. It is clearly absurd to presuppose that officers within the co-ordination sub-centre could have intimate knowledge of every mile of that coastline, or of the seas that break upon it. There will be no reduction in any local knowledge: the front-line coastline services will remain the same.
On the issue of staff reduction, there has again been much misinformation. It has been estimated that, during the process of the five-year strategy, there will be staff reductions of 78 in number—I repeat, 78. After consultation with all those involved, we believe that that number will be achieved by natural wastage, early retirement and early severance. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the valid point that the best technological equipment in the world is useless if the staff who use and maintain it are not highly trained and professional. Part of the five-year


strategy is to ensure that Coastguard staff maintain and improve on their already extremely high rates of professional competence.

Mr. Salmond: Why do they not believe that?

Ms Jackson: It is my interpretation that they do not believe it because there has been a campaign, from both inside and outside the House, of misinformation and disinformation.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No, I shall not give way. I do not make that allegation in respect of all hon. Members.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The campaign to which the Minister refers is led by those self-same staff. The Minister is not permitted to mislead the House in such a grotesque manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Ms Jackson: I made no allegations whatsoever about Coastguard staff and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) yet again shows that, whatever the subject of the debate, he is more concerned with making empty party political points than with concentrating on the important issues being discussed.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that there had been misinformation from inside the House and that is a serious allegation with which to take a scattergun approach. Which hon. Members does she accuse of misinforming the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Minister to reply to the debate in her own way.

Ms Jackson: I shall come to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) later in my speech and I shall be precise in making my allegations.
The other important aspect of the five-year strategy is that it will allow highly trained professional staff greater job satisfaction. There will also be greater opportunities to expand on accident prevention activities—a point raised by hon. Members on both sides. The issue of consultation was raised by several hon. Members and I assure the House that a process of consultation will be undertaken. The coastguard service is dependent on teamwork. The element of trust is vital to speed and efficiency, both in receiving information from vessels and individuals in distress and in disseminating that information from co-ordination centres to the front-line services on our coastline which undertake rescue attempts.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said that I had opted for a scattergun approach in my allegations that there has been misinformation. The most precise example of that misinformation is previous statements and the speech made today by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on the issue

of the co-ordination centres in Solent. There is a major difference between merging—which implies reducing— and collocation of the two centres.

Mr. Ian Bruce: That is nonsense. I did not use the word "merging".

Ms Jackson: I admit that the word "merging", was used not by the hon. Member for South Dorset but by the hon. Member for Gosport. The central issue is that the two sub-centres will need to be relocated. The buildings that they inhabit are not suitable, either for the personnel who work within them or for the new technology that is to be introduced.
The hon. Member for South Dorset averred that that relocation was a cost-cutting exercise and that costs would be cut by reducing the staff currently engaged at the two busiest sub-centres in the whole of our search and rescue service. Nothing could be further from the truth. If there is money to be saved, it will be saved on the bills of maintaining two buildings which, I repeat, do not provide an adequate environment for staff or for the equipment that will be housed in them. It makes good sense to rehouse the two sub-centres; I repeat that they will remain two sub-centres in one building.
The relocation has yet to be decided on. That issue will be part of the consultation process. There is already close co-operation—and integration—between the two sub-centres. They are responsible for co-ordinating rescues for 20 per cent. of United Kingdom search and rescue operations.
I apologise to all hon. Members for the fact that I have not had time to answer all their questions this morning. That so many hon. Members wished to participate in the debate emphasises the importance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now 11 o'clock.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think the Minister has read the words that are already on the record of the House, of the debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and we have given the hon. Lady the opportunity to withdraw what was a very serious misleading of the House. I have just been accused, as a Member of the House, of misleading the House in drawing attention to the inconsistencies—the incorrect information that is there. The hon. Lady has accused me of—

Ms Jackson: Misinformation.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady has accused me of giving misinformation to the House. I am astounded. How can one call a Minister of the Crown—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is continuing the debate. The Chair is not responsible for ministerial replies.

Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give us some guidance. When the Government seek to make major changes to funding for the police or the fire or ambulance services, it is customary for the Minister to make a statement in the House and yet on this occasion it has taken an


Adjournment debate to drag the Minister, kicking and screaming, to the House to demonstrate her incompetence. I wonder what the guidelines are for making statements on the emergency services.

Ms Jackson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Here we have another example of wilful misinformation emanating from the Opposition. No one had to drag me into the Chamber. I neither kicked nor screamed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out, I skipped into the Chamber—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of the debate. The way in which ministerial statements are made is not a matter for the Chair, and I suggest that we move on to the next debate, out of which we are taking valuable time.

Coal Industry

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the first speaker on the coal industry, I remind the House that even more hon. Members want to take part in this debate than the previous one, so it will be helpful if those who do are as brief as possible, to let other hon. Members have their opportunity.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The coal industry faces a challenging time, as the contracts inherited at privatisation expire on 31 March 1998.
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this timely debate, and I am pleased to see Labour colleagues from throughout the United Kingdom in the Chamber to support the coal industry. There are hon. Members from Wales and Scotland, but the crucial issue that we are considering this morning is the problem in the English coalfield, so the majority of hon. Members present are from the central coalfield, from Yorkshire, from Nottinghamshire and from the rest of the midlands.
We want to argue the case for coal, which will be extremely difficult to argue in the short term. In 1996, the main English coal supplier, RJB Mining, provided 30 million tonnes of coal to the generators. I do not know what it hopes to achieve in its negotiations next year; I expect that it will struggle to provide 15 million tonnes of coal. I note that RJB has agreed a contract of 4 million tonnes with Eastern, and I understand that this morning RJB and National Power have announced a contract of 16 million tonnes, but spread over four years. A big gap must be filled if RJB is to reach the 15 million tonnes that it talks about.
There is a problem on volume and a problem on price. If RJB achieves 15 million tonnes, that will be less than half what it supplied last year, and I expect that in the short term there will be major restructuring and redundancies in the industry.
It is important to recognise that RJB was privatised by the previous Government. We need to acknowledge that the generating industry was privatised by the previous Government. In the short term, the Minister of State's scope for intervention is very limited. I am surprised that people expect a new Labour Government to offer subsidies to the private sector. I am not convinced that there is a strong argument for rolling existing contracts forward for another year or two years—some of my colleagues may wish to comment on that—but I believe that the Minister has a role to play in the short term, and I know that he has been fulfilling that role.
The Minister's role is to get people around a table, to ensure that the generators and contractors talk to one another. He has a responsibility to take stock of what the industry might look like in a year's time. I hear the stories from RJB. I hear management say, "We might close eight to 10 pits in the short term." That would have enormous consequences for the people we represent—the people we know as hard-working, committed miners, who have done everything asked of them and more, the most productive miners in Europe. Many of them are confronted with another Christmas and new year of insecurity.
I ask the Minister to do what he can to convene meetings between the parties, to ensure that contracts are found and that decisions are taken early. One of the


ticking time bombs is that people who work in the industry have redundancy terms agreed from privatisation to 31 March, and I am extremely worried that the company appears to be reluctant to talk about extending those terms. I say this very simply to RJB, "If you want trouble and difficulties in your mines, the way to do so is not to talk to the men about redundancy payments in 1998."
There are things that the Minister can do to help the industry in the medium to long term. Coal generation is growing worldwide, so we must maintain a secure and prosperous coal industry in the UK. There are business opportunities internationally, and British mining suppliers and engineering suppliers should benefit.
I know that the Minister is taking steps. I wish that he would say more clearly and loudly what he is doing. His voice is not being heard in coalfield communities. Let me talk about some of the things that he has agreed to do. He is backing coal companies fighting European subsidies in Germany and Spain. He is giving coal an extra chance against nuclear, as a result of the unwinding of the nuclear levy. Those are important things to do.
It is important to examine how the electricity pool works and to take early decisions. Astonishingly, major power stations such as Drax and Radcliffe, which have flue gas desulphurisation, do not run. I should like the Minister's review of the pool to result in cleaner plant being run in preference to dirtier plant. That does not happen now, and I hope that we shall take steps, through that review and the regulation review that the President of the Board of Trade is conducting, to ensure that coal gets a fair deal in the electricity pool.
By themselves, those steps will not be enough. I hope that the Minister will try to help coal in the medium to long term, because decisions that he takes and announcements that he makes now will influence the short-term position. People will not invest, either in coal or in generation, unless they know what the Government's policy is, and there is confusion about that at present. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will state his position clearly. I hope that he will give us a commitment that when he chairs the Council of Ministers energy meeting— which is not far away and will take place in the new year— he will work to ensure that there is a real market, a free market, for electricity.
I hope that one early step that my hon. Friend will take will be to look at the interconnector with France. It is ludicrous that electricity should be bought and subsidised to come into this country. We want a free market in Europe, a market where British-generated electricity can compete on the continent; the stranglehold that some companies have on the continent needs to be broken, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look closely at that.
I hope that within Europe and elsewhere my hon. Friend will consider the issues surrounding climate change. It is only a few days until the Kyoto summit, in which Britain is a prime and important player. We need to be clear about the consequences of our pledges. Our pledge to reduce further CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010 will create pain— that is perceived in the United States and in Japan. We need to make the reality clear here. The reality in the United Kingdom is that carbon dioxide emissions from coal generation have been reduced by 50 per cent. since 1970, and coalfield communities have felt the pain. Collieries have closed,

men have lost jobs, and all over England, Scotland and Wales there are mining communities that cannot see the way forward clearly.
We need to be careful what we say at Kyoto, and we need to use new technology. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is an enthusiast for new technology, and I hope that in the run-up to Kyoto he will make some announcements about clean-coal technology. There has been a lot of research into the subject over a number of years and now is the time to reap the dividends, and to bring the players together to try to ensure that early in the next century we replace existing dirty plant with clean-burn coal. If we can do it here in the United Kingdom, we can export that technology across the rest of the world. There are enormous opportunities for us if we take that policy forward.
The initiative in clean-coal technology must be private sector led, but the Minister and the Government have a role to play in providing security and giving a commitment to that approach. If the Minister makes early announcements on clean-coal technology, I can assure him that he will be cheered all over the coalfield communities in the United Kingdom. What would cheer coalfield communities even more is if the policy on gas generation was spelt out clearly.
I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's position. As I understand it, when he took up his desk at the Department of Trade and Industry, 25 consents were already agreed for gas-powered stations. If all of them were built— I hope that they will not all be built— we should see the demise of the British coal industry in the short term. Since he took office, my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed five new gas-powered stations, displacing 6 million tonnes of coal. As I understand it, those stations have been mainly plant connected, with combined heat and power, to give greater efficiency, but they are not all like that. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House today what criteria he is using to judge and approve new gas stations. We have a right to know, as does the market.

Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my hon. Friend also tell the Minister that nothing has been said so far about why the European Community wants to import gas from Russia and north Africa at rock bottom prices throughout the continent? What steps could be taken on that? Now or in the near future, is that policy to become part of a big negotiating package affecting such issues as fish quotas, beef exports, wine lakes, trade discussions and disagreements? Will my hon. Friend say a few words about that?

Mr. Tipping: I shall say one or two words about that and come to the substantive point in a minute. I hope that the coalfield communities of the United Kingdom will not be sold out at some bargaining table in Brussels. I know that the people who live in Bassetlaw and Worksop, the area that my hon. Friend represents, are conscious of that and do not want to be pawns in the game.
To return to the gas industry, I know that the Minister has faced challenges and been told that he should put a moratorium on gas. I believe that he may have taken advice suggesting that were he to do so, he would face a legal challenge. I understand the argument, but the


soundings that many of my colleagues and I have taken in the industry show that if the Minister were minded to declare a short-term moratorium for perhaps three years in order to see how the rapidly changing energy market settled, there would be concern in the industry, but no serious challenge.
Ultimately, gas generation is pushing coal off the agenda and off the face of the United Kingdom. I mildly say to the Minister that now is the time to step off the gas. If a crash is inevitable, if the closure of the British mining industry is inevitable, now is the time to touch the brake and look closely at gas.
There is a bigger and longer-term issue. In the next few weeks, we shall see some slimming down of the British coal industry; if we are not careful and do not take the steps that I am advocating today, we could see the final demise of the coal industry. We shall be entirely dependent on nuclear renewables and gas. The nuclear industry is now in the private sector, and when replacement is needed, the market will not take the risk of replacement because of factors such as disposal and decommissioning costs.
We need to encourage renewables. As the Minister knows, our target is 10 per cent. by 2010, which will be difficult to achieve. In the longer term, beyond the North sea supplies, we shall be totally dependent on gas from places such as Algeria, Iran and Russia. Perhaps the Minister will look at the discussions that have taken place between the Iran oil ministry and Gasprom in Russia about technical co-operation. What they are talking about is rigging the market and increasing the cost of gas. Some 20 to 30 years from now, we could be dependent on sources of supply that are outside our control and that are now rapidly diminishing. The Minister needs only to look at his own statistics to see that gas exploration is not expanding. For the first time, the amount of gas available is on a plateau and there are signs that availability is declining; moreover, the demand for gas is increasing all the time. We shall see a rapid decline of that gas supply, and we shall be left isolated and totally dependent on gas from elsewhere.
If my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues can look forward 50 years and take action on climate change, they should do so. They need to establish the baseline now for a balanced energy policy that still has coal as its cornerstone. I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the matter and that, despite criticism, he has been enthusiastic and has worked hard. I know that he has met miners and will meet others this week; I know that he hears their voice. Put simply, he should hear their cries of despair.
This Christmas and this new year will be yet another time of insecurity and worry. The people who work in the coal industry have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. They are the most productive miners in Europe. They are young, well educated and skilled for the future. We must stick with them. We need to invest in coal, the coal industry, coalfield communities and the future.
Unlike the Opposition, I do not want us to turn our back on coal and to leave the industry to the whims of the market. I want the Government to act now and to do what they can, not in the short term, but in the medium

to long term, to ensure that the coal that has for years been in the blood of many of us remains there, and that the coal industry survives and prospers, in the UK and internationally, into the next millennium.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) must be thanked for initiating the debate, which provides the whole House with an opportunity of hearing what the Government intend to do or not to do in relation to the coal industry.
I had considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman as he spoke, as it cannot be easy as a parliamentary private secretary to initiate a debate on a matter as contentious and difficult as the coal industry, and to stay within the bounds of collective responsibility. The House will have understood the constraints within which he was working, and I make no criticism of that. One understands the shorthand.
Those who voted Labour on 1 May in Nottingham and elsewhere would have done so in part because, I suspect, they accepted what the Labour party had promised in relation to coal and other matters. Although it is easy for Labour Members to make comments about the Conservative party, that is not the issue today. The issue is what the Government intend to do, and what the Labour party intends to do in respect of the pledges that it made to the country— the basis on which it was elected on 1 May.
In December 1992, at the time of the previous coal debacle, the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is the present Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and the then shadow Minister for Energy, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), issued a joint press release presenting a six-point plan, which stated:
Labour's six steps would put Britain's coal industry on the road to a secure future by giving it the chance to compete on level terms instead of being squeezed out of a rigged market.
The press release continued:
Britain's coal reserves are a rich national asset. Our gas reserves will only last into the start of the next century, but our coal reserves could supply Britain's energy needs beyond the end of the next century. Letting the pits close now in a dispute over a one-year contract with the electricity companies would be short-termism on a criminal scale.
The six steps in Labour's plan would
end the rigged market for gas—no more licences should be issued for gas-fired power stations; open up nuclear power to competition; halt imports of French electricity"—
the hon. Member for Sherwood referred to the interconnector—
stop unfair dumping of coal imports; provide stability for the future— the reduction in the franchise sector of the distribution companies should be postponed; and invest in clean coal technology.

Mr. Ashton: Then the Conservative Government sold the industry.

Mr. Baldry: All those points are as relevant now as they were then. The House and the mining communities are entitled to hear from the Labour Front Bench the Labour party's policy for coal. One sees headlines in The Independent on Sunday stating, "Labour prepares to spin away 5,000 miners' jobs".
It is interesting that the Minister without Portfolio has spun into the Chamber at this moment— an unusual visitor to Wednesday morning debates, or ever.
The Independent on Sunday reports that the mining communities— not surprisingly and quite rightly— say:
Down the generations, we have given far more to the Labour party than Bernie Ecclestone … Why won't they listen to us now?
The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry knows that I like him and have a great deal of respect for him, but I cannot understand why he has not yet been prepared to see the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and other unions. That is one of the disconcerting features of recent weeks, although he may now have met the unions.
There is a general constitutional convention in the House— and if there is not, there should be— that Ministers will always see groups with an interest in the policy area that they represent. That was the case among most Conservative Ministers when I was a Minister.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I saw representatives of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers yesterday.

Mr. Baldry: The Minister says that he met the UDM yesterday. That is rather belated. The UDM's concern was that on several occasions the Minister had arranged meetings, which were subsequently cancelled. As of a few days ago, I understood that the Minister had failed to see the UDM. If that is unfair, I am sure that the Minister will tell the House when he last saw the UDM.

Mr. Battle: I have met members of the different trade unions on many occasions, not least in the middle of the summer, when the debate started. I met a group of representatives from Asfordby to start with, and we went on meeting. There is one member of the UDM who said that I had not met him personally; that is true.
Let me make it plain that I have met with Members of Parliament, and I have written to all hon. Members with a mining interest, inviting them to come and meet me with representatives of the industry at any time. That invitation stands. The only meeting that was postponed was one at which we wanted to discuss the environmental issues with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, but unfortunately he had to attend talks in America at the time for which the meeting was arranged, so we postponed it; we did not cancel it.

Mr. Baldry: The Minister does himself a disservice. The explanation that he gives the House conceals the fact that the one member of the UDM whom he has failed to see is the president of the UDM. The Minister can hardly be surprised if the UDM. as a major union in the east midlands, expresses concern.

Mr. Battle: Arthur Scargill says the same.

Mr. Baldry: Indeed, if the president or members of the National Union of Mineworkers wish to see him, the Minister would be wise to see them as well. Then it would not be necessary to have Wednesday morning

debates such as this. The Minister does himself a disservice if he is unwilling to see leading members of the coal mining communities.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend may know that I have taken a slight interest in coal. I had many meetings with Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, to try to get them to listen to some of the arguments that we must now present in opposition. Does he agree that it is the Prime Minister who is in the frame on this? Of course I would not expect the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) to point that out, given the sensitivity of his position as a parliamentary private secretary.
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about that, but the Prime Minister has committed the country, much to the fury of the Trades Unions Congress, to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide. The Kyoto conference is coming up, but that commitment is being driven by a policy for which the Prime Minister is personally responsible. The other day he was arguing for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be much briefer than that.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is also significant that in his maiden speech to the House, the Prime Minister made a plea against pit closures in his Sedgefield constituency. At that time, those pits were producing high-cost coal. If the Prime Minister thought at that stage that it was wrong to close the pits, we are entitled to know what the Government think today.
Mining communities are worried when they read that the Government's intended strategy over the debacle is to blame RJB Mining for failing to negotiate contracts with the generators, when
other 'major producers' have been able to do so",
according to The Independent on Sunday. In fact, there are no other major producers. There are no other major UK mining companies, because RJB Mining has 90 per cent. of domestic coal production.
The House is entitled to hear today from the Government what they intend to do in relation to the coal industry. The hon. Member for Sherwood was constrained from saying this in terms, but it is clear that if secure coal contracts are not negotiated over the next few months, a considerable number of jobs will be lost in the coal industry.
I put to the Minister a point that was difficult for the hon. Member for Sherwood to make. Those in the coal mining communities—many of whom are represented by Labour Members—would like the Government to consider extending the current contracts for a further two years until Professor Littlechild's review of the electricity market is concluded. Those communities are understandably concerned that, although productivity in coal has improved enormously and the cost of coal has decreased considerably, the benefit has not been passed on to the consumer. Coal miners believe that their jobs are at risk and that Professor Littlechild's review might provide some useful information and conclusions. It would be sensible to


allow existing contracts to run while the review continues and to impose a moratorium on mine closures in the interim.
Such action may involve a cost. The hon. Member for Sherwood said that no one expects a Labour Government to subsidise a privatised industry. I suspect that many miners in his constituency and elsewhere are not interested in ideological niceties of that kind. [Interruption.] They are concerned about their jobs. They want to hear what the Government intend to do to help them— and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response today. The Labour Government will not provide much consolation if they simply say, "We are terribly sorry, but we are going to wash our hands of the matter. We don't think that we can intervene, so we shall simply blame the Conservative party, Budge or anyone else we can think of. We shall not take any action."

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that miners are not concerned about "ideological niceties", but they are concerned about fair treatment from the new owners of Britain's mining industry, RJB Mining. For example, the closure of Asfordby colliery was announced to the stock exchange before it was announced to the work force. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that RJB has treated its employees fairly? Many people believe that handing over the British mining industry to RJB is akin to asking Imelda Marcos to mind one's shoe shop: one should not be surprised if it is totally stripped before it is returned.

Mr. Baldry: I hold no brief for RJB. I do not know the facts of the case— apart from the details that the hon. Gentleman has provided. It is beholden on any good employer to notify and brief his employees: that is good personnel-management relations. That is what we expect of any employer, including RJB. The pit to which the hon. Gentleman refers is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who I suspect hopes to speak later in the debate.
My point is that the House and the mining communities want to know today whether there is a possibility of the Government's intervening to extend the current coal contracts and impose a moratorium on further pit closures. After all, that is what the then Labour Opposition said when there was a similar situation in 1992.
As to where the money might come from, the coal unions have pointed out that the mineworkers' pension scheme has generated an actuarial surplus of £1.5 billion and that the Government, as guarantor of the scheme, are entitled to £750 million of that surplus. With accrued interest, the Government could take £110 million of the surplus every year for the next 10 years. Therefore, enough money would be available without the Government's having to raise additional funds. What do the Government think of that suggestion by the mining unions? Do they believe that it has any merit and, if so, are they prepared to act on it?
On a previous occasion, Labour Members made a lot of noise and many pledges. The miners and the communities of the east midlands and of the entire

country want to know which pledges and manifesto commitments the Labour Government will honour—or perhaps, as The Independent on Sunday suggests, they will simply prepare for 5,000 job losses by spin-doctoring between now and Christmas.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The charge levelled against the Minister by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is wrong. I have been involved in the coal mining debate for many years—indeed, since I came to this place—and the Minister met coal miners in my constituency before 1 May to talk about the problems that we knew would result from events over the past decade.
The hon. Gentleman claims that people in coal mining communities want to know what is going on. I suspect that they want to know why the hon. Gentleman and most of his right hon. and hon. Friends set the scene for the present problems in the coal industry. They voted against us in the Division, with one or two honourable exceptions—the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is in the Chamber today. I have had some unhealthy bedfellows in television studios in the past few days. Someone commented that the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), was a strange bedfellow for me, and I nearly replied that I would be sleeping with one eye open. The hon. Member for Banbury is fundamentally wrong— especially in his attack on my hon. Friend the Minister.
I came to the House in 1983, fresh from Maltby colliery. Two weeks ago, that colliery announced 600 job losses from a work force of 850. Maltby colliery is not a Victorian coal mine: its technology is as good as that of, dare I say, formula one racing. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in that mine, and I was there when the major round of investments began under a Labour Government in the 1970s. More than £200 million was invested at that time when the last Labour Government got caught not because they managed the economy badly, but because they had to import energy into this country—which was also the policy of the previous Administration. The price suddenly increased from $2 or $3 a barrel to $20 a barrel, which created enormous economic problems for the nation. It was not the fault of people in the Treasury: there was an attack on the British economy from outside, and the nation invested in the industry to ensure that that would never happen again.

Mr. Ashton: With no North sea oil.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is correct. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested in those collieries that are still open today. Many people cannot understand why we now face job losses in light of that massive investment. As far as the nation is concerned, the issue of ownership of the coal industry—now and then—is immaterial. Funding for the industry was an investment for the nation so that we would not return to the dark days of the 1970s. The economic attack on this country at that time hurt not just the miners but everyone—indeed, miners received decent wages and there was decent investment in the industry in the 1970s for the first time.
The Government have inherited the current problem, and my sympathies lie with them. For more than a decade, there was a strategy to get rid of coal mining in this


country. That may have been a consequence of the 1974 general election result—I was a working coal miner at that time. No matter where the seeds were sown, that policy was enacted for more than a decade in this country. It was the strategy of the previous Administration.
The decline in the coal markets over the past decade inevitably meant that we would end up with the mess that is on our hands at the moment. It is very difficult to see how we can get over it in the short term, but we must find a way. It would be crazy to throw away the investment that we as a nation put into coal mining. Fifty per cent. of European coal reserves are in this country. Are we going to cut off access to those reserves and thus deny Europe, in years to come, the ability to use them and our ability to sell to Europe? I hope not.
The Government are in a very difficult situation, as are my 600 miners and their families, who have a bad Christmas to look forward to. This comes on the back of the thousands of coal miners' jobs that have been lost in my constituency. We need to act in the medium and long term. I accept that we are looking at the electricity markets, where the seeds of the mining industry's downfall are, and where people have not been operating a market system at all, preferring one fuel against another as a base fuel into our power stations. We must look there, certainly in the short term, if we are to get over the likely loss of the coal market from March next year.
I agree that we said in opposition that we should not license new gas-fired power stations. It is right to say that the ones that have been licensed since 1 May will not come on stream for two or three years, but that sends negative attitudes to the marketplace about where we as a Government believe that coal will be in a few years' time. That must be recognised every time a speech or a decision is made. At the moment, coal is on the defensive—it has been for 10 years—and it has been put more on the defensive.
I should admit that I am vice-president of the Combined Heat and Power Association. I agree that we should have CHP gas, but the heat loads of the power stations with CHP are very low. Their intention is to get electricity that is generated by gas into the marketplace, because that is what suits the market. I do not think that we can sustain that. We should look more critically at new gas stations. I know that it causes legal problems and so on, but we should do what we said we would five years ago.
I do not say that just because of the coal lobby. My hon. Friend the Minister received a letter from the Utility Buyers Forum, dated 13 November, which criticises the use of gas for electricity generation. It says that it creates problems not only for our indigenous coal industry but for the people who have been buying gas for many years, who are finding it difficult to keep a supply of gas coming in. The letter says:
They are also very concerned that the significant increase in the interruptions to the supply of gas, because of transmission constraints, is a direct outcome of gas being diverted to electricity generation to the detriment of existing gas users.
There is a body of opinion—it is not just the pro-coal lobby—that says that we are throwing away a very important fuel in terms of gas. I do not want to throw it away, as it is very important, but it is likely to last a maximum of 15 to 20 years on current use. On that basis, we should look more critically at the situation.
In the short term there are problems for everybody, including coal miners, but if we have plans in the medium to long term that could sustain the deep mines that we

have, it would be crazy not to make that plain while the negotiations are taking place. As was said yesterday, the negotiations may be over—who knows? However, it is very important that we pass positive messages that there is a long-term future for deep-mined coal in this country. That is what many of my hon. Friends and many thousands of coal miners and I want to hear from the Government.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I listened to what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) had to say with some surprise, because the coal industry in this country has been destroyed largely by the Conservative Government during the past 18 years. What he had to say about a moratorium was rather facing both ways, which is a polite way of putting it in view of the Conservative Government's failure to protect the coal industry when they had the opportunity.
That said, I have much sympathy with what the Minister is trying to do. On the one hand he is trying to square a circle and ensure that the Government can comply with the carbon dioxide reduction targets that they have set themselves; on the other, he is trying to protect jobs and a very important British industry. That is a difficult job to do.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are quite clear that the most important factor is to achieve the reduction targets and protect the atmosphere and the world climate, and hence the environment of all of us, including those who currently work in the mining industry. However, that does not mean that we have to throw away the mining industry completely.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned clean coal. It is very clear that, whatever the future energy prospects in this country and western Europe—it seems likely that they will be based on gas and renewables, as economic and generally carbon-free fuels of the future—in other parts of the world, particularly India and China, there will be a continued and expanding market for coal well into the next century. Indeed, it is extremely likely that, in the next 40 to 50 years, the growth in coal consumption in China will substantially exceed any reduction in coal output in the United Kingdom in the past 40 or 50 years.
Perhaps understandably, the associated industries—the mining engineering and the technology and machinery sectors—have not featured highly in the debate so far. There are very clear opportunities for British expertise to be used in the developing markets for coal overseas. I hope that the Minister will pick up that issue and give some consolation, support and help to that part of the mining industry, which is involved not in extraction but in the supply and support of the industry. A significant export market is available to Britain provided that the right investment and support are given to its continuation in this country. For years, Britain led the world in mining engineering and technology. It would be a great shame if the current difficulties in extraction resulted in the destruction of our technological lead and led to a failure to exploit it on the world export markets.
Although there is no doubt that if we pursue the targets for carbon reduction in this country, it will have an adverse effect on the mining industry, we should also remember that, taken as a whole, it can very positive for


jobs and employment in this country. That may not be much consolation to some hon. Members who rightly speak very spiritedly on behalf of their constituents and the mining industry, but it would be a mistake for the House to conclude the debate without understanding that the changes that are coming can be positive for this country, not just in environmental terms but in employment and export terms.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on initiating this debate and I declare an interest as an adviser to Scottish Coal. I want to put the record straight about the Minister. I want to thank him and the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), publicly for their efforts to try to keep Monktonhall open. They were not successful, but access to Ministers was second to none for the trade unions, the local authority and myself.
I should like to appeal to the Minister. The current threat of redundancy means that we are in a critical period. I heard the statement made in another place yesterday, but I hope that the Minister and his Department will adjudicate during discussions with those involved in getting contracts for the generating units and with the company concerned. I believe that they could do that behind the scenes and that his Department could bring common sense to bear so that the people involved can have a happy Christmas, a happy new year and a future. The problem facing the coal industry now is the immediate future. It is difficult for the Minister to get involved with private companies and so on, but I hope that he will do so.
As an ex-miner, an ex-miners' leader and now as a Member of Parliament for an ex-mining area I have spoken on many occasions and in many places about a genuine integrated fuel policy for the United Kingdom. We have been arguing about that for a long time. We have the finest deep mines in the world. They are the best technically, productively and in terms of safety. We are second to none. We have people who are the envy of other countries. Japan would give its right arm for an indigenous coal industry such as ours. I believe that we may be suffering from an abundance of indigenous fuel. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood that we shall be at the mercy of foreign imports in the future. Our children and our children's children will not thank us if we do not deal with the problems now.
It is not possible to switch a colliery on and off. It cannot be mothballed and returned to later—a colliery is not like a tap—because it deteriorates. Public money was spent at Asfordby, but its potential closure is criminal for this country's assets.
It was said that there would be a crawl for gas, but we have a dash for gas and something should be done about that. A moratorium must be set up. We must think about the strategic future and potential of gas. A gas-fired station eats up millions of therms of gas whereas, domestically, the same amount would last for months or even years.
There is an application for a gas-fired station in Scotland, but Scotland already has an overcapacity of generating units. We want to export electricity, not set

up another competitor which is not really needed. The knock-on effect would be the closure of coal-fired stations. We have made our representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland through the trade unions and so on, but common sense must prevail. We should stop this before it starts.
We cannot help repeating ourselves in debates such as this and I make no apology for doing so. Renewables such as wave power, thermal energy and wind power are important. It is a new and important idea. However, we would like the same amount of grant to be given to clean-coal technology. We should not apologise for giving grants because private industry receives many grants, particularly farmers and others. Fossil fuel subsidy savings could be part and parcel of the money used for grants to upgrade the coal-fired generating units. If we do not deal with the levels of CO2 and SO2, there will be premature closure of coal-fired stations. We do not want that to happen because it will have a knock-on effect on the coal industry.
I make no apology for saying that the coal industry pays into the Exchequer millions of pounds each year in taxes, PAYE, VAT and a host of other ways. More than that, there is a massive saving on the balance of payments. Every time we buy fuel from abroad, no matter what type of fuel, it is paid for in yankee dollars which have to be bought in the marketplace or earned through exports. The coal industry is the most efficient and competent industry that ever was. If British industry had been as efficient as the coal miners, we would be leading the world in productivity and economics.
I am emotional about this because I am talking about my colleagues, including those in other coalfields. There is no barrier between miners, geographical or otherwise. We must think about what is good for UK incorporated. I am appealing to my hon. Friend the Minister to do that.
We must protect our indigenous supplies. Competition between inert mixtures is nil. Competition is a man-made philosophy. According to the diktats of some Opposition Members, it is the be-all and end-all, but it is not always what is best for the United Kingdom. It is not always good for the future. It may be short-termism and may lead to us doing something that we regret later.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to sit down with everyone involved in the energy industry to talk about an integrated fuel policy. I would then be happy to see the future of those in the coal industry alongside the future of those in other industries. We do not want closures in other industries—there must be life for all. Our decisions must be based on common sense and what is best for the people of this country.

Mr. Alan Duncan: A few moments ago an ill-informed Government Whip shouted across the Chamber asking me what I know about energy. He should do some reading. I have spent 15 years trading oil and, given that energy is interdependent, one begins to learn about coal as well.
My interest began 10 years ago when I stood, unsuccessfully as a parliamentary candidate in Barnsley, West and Penistone just after the miners' strike, where I gloriously increased the Labour majority from 10,000 to 14,000. Little did I expect that, when I was selected for a rather more satisfactory part of the country, I would


have in my part of rural Britain one of the largest deep mines in Britain. That mine is—or sadly was—Asfordby. Over £400 million had been invested in that mine and there were high hopes for the production of high-quality deep-mined coal. The investment was made entirely under a Conservative Government. Sadly, severe geological faults have been encountered and the mine has had to close.
That is causing local economic problems and 400 men have been laid off during the past year. Melton borough council and those who help in the area are doing all that they can to ensure that the community does not suffer as much as it might. Contrary to the jibes of Government Whips, I am interested in coal and have taken as deep an interest as I can.

Mr. David Taylor: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is interested in coal. Can he tell us why, when the campaign to save Asfordby wrote to him, he said that he was unable to help in any way and told those involved to direct their concerns to the Minister?

Mr. Duncan: In replying to my constituents, I pointed out what I believed to be the truth—which is that the Minister is prepared to do nothing. That intervention and the entire debate has illustrated that the Government will do nothing and have always intended to do nothing. They are trying to live a double life. They say that they are not in favour of subsidies but are now in favour of the real world of free markets. At the same time, they pretend to interest groups that they are defending and helping those groups in ways that the Conservative Government could not. I want to dwell on the Government's hypocrisy.
I may be less generous than my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). I recognise that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) has consistently defended coal mining interests cogently, fairly, reasonably and without hypocrisy or double standards, but I fear that the same cannot be said of the Minister. The hon. Member for Sherwood is a parliamentary private secretary and I am sure that even he would admit, as he smiles at me across the Chamber, that the debate has an element of window dressing. He knows that he cannot push this issue too far or it would be inconsistent with his remaining a PPS. He also knows that the Minister will do nothing about the matter. Securing this debate is good for headlines and for his reputation as an hon. Member who defends mining interests, but nothing will be done as a consequence.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generous remarks, although I am sorry that he gave them with one hand and took them away with the other. I have high expectations. It is not window dressing: I have a shopping list of things that I expect my hon. Friend the Minister to do for the coal mining industry.

Mr. Duncan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a shopping list, but I am not sure whether, even as Christmas comes, he will get any of the things on it. Calls have been made for something to be done about conserving coal reserves, but no specific suggestions have been made about how that can be achieved. I think that something most definitely has to be done about overseas subsidies, but no progress whatever is being made.
The Labour party in government is unable to reconcile its campaigning and its claims to be able to help people, with its espousal of the free market and its intention to work within it. The debate should primarily dwell on the Minister's conduct. Before 1 May, when he usually sat at the back of the Opposition Benches, he would lambast the Conservative Government in his charming way and call on them to do something about the coal industry. Now that he sits on the Government Front Bench with his Red Box and his ministerial car, he is prepared to do absolutely nothing. What he said when in opposition in no way marries with what he is pretending or, in my view, failing to do as a Minister of the Crown.

Mr. Battle: Quote me.

Mr. Duncan: We can look in Hansard, which will show that the hon. Gentleman called for much to be done. Will he write into the record what specific action he proposes to take, what money he intends to spend, whom he has seen, what he has promised them, and what the Minister without Portfolio has told him to do to prevent what would otherwise happen to Britain's coal mining industry, given the forces of the free market? The Minister did nothing for the miners in Asfordby. He says that he wrote me a letter, but I did not see it. His private office has just been phoned, but it seems that it does not know when the letter was sent.
Spokesmen from the Maltby colliery do not think that the Minister for nothing is doing anything. They say in today's Yorkshire Post:
The feeling was that the Government are trying to get rid of the lot of us.
The Minister should have the courtesy to look at me when I address him across the Chamber to point out how little he is doing to help coal miners. He is still chatting to the Minister without Portfolio, who masterminded so many of the campaigns before the election, which perhaps explains why he is a little more barefaced than the Minister.
The representative from Maltby said:
We have had discussions with the Labour Party, and they have been promising us for months: You'll be all right, we'll sort it.
He added:
They have lied to us—what they promised to do was set the market straight.
They have not.
That's all we ask for, we're not asking for money or subsidies. We are just getting stuffed out of the window and we don't know why.
Is the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who used to work in the Maltby colliery, proud of the Government?

Mr. Barron: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's position. Before 1 May, he said the opposite of what he is now saying. You are one of the people who voted in 1992 to put the industry under pressure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.

Mr. Duncan: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's taunt. The Conservative Government did what they said they would do. The Labour Government


said one thing when they were in opposition, and are now doing the opposite. I despise their hypocrisy: it labels the Minister as the Minister for nothing rather than the Minister for energy. What does he intend to do? Absolutely nothing. At last, he is meeting the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, but he is merely going through the motions and is still doing nothing.

Mr. Battle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was away when we debated the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill, which stopped the subsidy for imported French nuclear energy, and levelled the playing field on nuclear subsidies in Britain to give coal a fairer crack of the whip. If that is doing nothing, where was the hon. Gentleman when it was done?

Mr. Duncan: That is the area on which I now want to dwell. I agree that, if there is to be a proper free market, there should not be unfair subsidies for one country, which enable it to export its coal to Britain and undermine our freely working market. I shall ask the Minister one more time to explain in great detail how German and Spanish subsidies are to be removed. What are he and the Prime Minister doing with their chums in Brussels to ensure that those subsidies are removed?

Mr. Battle: Unlike the Conservative Government, who did absolutely nothing, we protested and raised the matter with the European Commission within weeks of coming into government to try to stop German and Spanish subsidies. That is why the German Minister will be in my office tomorrow asking me why we took that action. The Conservative Government did nothing.

Mr. Richard Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a Minister of the Crown comes to the Chamber and says something that is untrue, what action can a former Minister take to rebut such damaging allegations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows that what is said in the House is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwest Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was the Minister responsible for energy before 1 May. It is clear that something was done. Will the Minister tell us when German and Spanish subsidies will end? Yippee, hallelujah, the Minister has made a protest, but how will he ensure that there is fair play between the coal that is produced and exported by Germany and Spain, and coal that is produced in and exported by Britain? We want to know the specific detail. Until we do, the hon. Gentleman will be labelled the Minister for nothing—or worse, as the Minister for the betrayal of the coal mines that he pretended to defend.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and other hon. Members who have spoken out in this debate. Those of us who were in the House before and during the miners' strike recall the passion and eloquence with which the miners' cause was championed. It is the Labour

Government, not Labour Members, who are on trial today. These Ministers have been in charge for the past six months. The plain fact is that the Government do not have a coal policy; they do not even have an energy policy. They have an environment policy and are undertaking a series of energy reviews. They have asked the regulator to review the electricity pool, the Department is reviewing the utilities, the Minister is supposed to be reviewing renewables and clean-coal technology, the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing combined heat and power and the Chancellor has been reviewing the impact of the reduction of VAT on energy-saving materials. The Minister has reviews; he does not have a policy.
Far from helping the coal industry since he took up his post six months ago, the Minister has made the situation very much worse. Just when the coal contracts have come up for review, he has licensed more and more gas. He has licensed a huge gas-fired station for his friends in British Petroleum.

Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fallon: I will not because time is short.
The Government have adopted a series of emission targets and will do so again at Kyoto, all of which will make the position of the coal industry more difficult. The Minister's actions could be described as
driving the nails in the coal industry's coffin".
Those are not my words or the words of the press. They are the words of the Minister's own press office in the spin doctors' memorandum that his officials have prepared. The memorandum uses the phrase:
Since the Government could be portrayed as driving the nails in the coal industry's coffin".
The only thing that the Minister seems concerned about is public relations. All he is bothered about is the spin doctoring that will cover the closure of the collieries. Indeed, he is happy to see 5,000 jobs disappear before the end of the financial year provided that it is done in an orderly way. His own document says that it is
important now that RJB makes the necessary adjustments to their capacity in an orderly way.
The Minister is presiding over the rundown of the collieries. I must tell the Minister that it is not a question of 5,000 jobs being at stake. The miners' leaders have made it clear to us that more than 50,000 jobs are at stake in the industry. It is high time that the Minister stopped blaming everyone else and stopped saying that there is nothing that he can do. I shall tell the Minister what to do.
First, the Minister can talk to the miners' leaders; he has not yet met them. In the debate on the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill, we were challenged to talk to the miners' leaders in Nottinghamshire. We have done that; the miners' leaders came to see us because they could not get to see the Minister. They told us that they had not agreed with the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but that they had respected him because he had the guts to meet them and to explain his policy face to face. Why has the Minister not met the miners' leaders? Why has he not talked to Mr. Budge?
Mr. Budge is the single most important figure in the industry. I would have thought that, with 50,000 jobs at stake, the Minister would have given some time to


Mr. Budge. Of course, Mr. Budge has not given £1 million to the Labour party. If he had, he would not be bothered with this feather of a junior Minister. He would see the Prime Minister and the matter would be sorted out at No. 10. The Minister should meet the miners' leaders and Mr. Budge.
Secondly, the Minister should get to grips with what is happening in the coal industry. It is no use him saying, as he has said so often, that the industry is in private hands. The electricity companies were in private hands in 1992, but that did not prevent the Conservative Government from intervening. That did not prevent us from imposing a moratorium on pit closures or from leaning on the electricity companies to burn more coal. If the Minister does not believe that, he should talk to Yorkshire Electricity, which will tell him exactly what pressure was put on the company in 1992 by Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Yvette Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fallon: I will not.
It is nonsense to say that, because the industry is private, nothing can be done. Conservative Ministers intervened; this Minister can intervene.
Thirdly, given the state of the negotiations, the Minister was extremely unwise to accentuate the dash for gas. He said twice in my hearing yesterday that he had implemented all of the six-point plan for coal which Labour produced in 1992. That is not true. The six-point plan for coal was issued by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in December 1992. The first point was:
No more licences should be issued for gas-fired power stations.
That was Labour's promise in 1992 and the Government have broken it. They have licensed gas-fired power stations and they have made the situation more difficult for the coal industry.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important of all given that the Minister has asked the regulator to review the pool arrangements and to review the true costs of baseload electricity—that review, which has not even started yet, will take most of next year—there is certainly a good case for extending the rest of the current contracts. I remind the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) reminded him, of what the right hon. Member for Livingston said:
Letting the pits close now in a dispute over a one-year contract with the electricity companies would be short-termism on a criminal scale.
If that was true in 1992, it is true today.
If the Minister really cared about the coal industry, those are the four simple steps he would be taking now. If he does not take those steps, he and the President of the Board of Trade will stand condemned as the coal industry's silent butchers. They say nothing, they do nothing and they care nothing.
I looked back to see what the Minister had done for coal over the past few weeks; I may have done him an injustice. I found a press notice issued by him on 13 November which says:
Lifeline for national mining museum".
The Minister announced that there would be talks and that £100,000 would be given to keep the national mining museum going. He is happy to get involved with the

national mining museum. He will be dealing with a genuinely national mining museum if he does not get cracking and start caring for coal. Perhaps he is happy to turn our entire coal industry into a branch of the heritage industry.
It is now late in the day. There are four months left before the remaining coal contracts expire. There is still time for the Government to wake up to what is happening in the coalfields. There is still time for the Government to keep their promises to the coalfield communities and to the miners' unions. If, however, we do not get some action soon, today's debate will be the first in a series on closure after closure.
The Minister may want to spread out the closures "in an orderly way"; Conservative Members do not. We want to see a competitive coal industry—a coal industry with a future. We want to see an energy policy that relies on diversity. We are not prepared to see our coal industry closed down "in an orderly way" in the first half of this Parliament so that it is off the Minister's desk and so that another problem has been sorted before the next election.
If the Minister has any credibility left, it is time for him to announce to the House that he does have a coal policy. It is time for him to send out a signal to the coalfield communities and to the collieries that he does care about their future.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). My biggest regret is the shortness of time. I know that many other. hon. Members want to take part in the debate and I would have welcomed an airing of all the issues. It is vital to have a proper discussion on the matter in the House. I am accused of not saying anything; I would not mind a bit of time in which to say something in response because I believe that the Government are doing something. In the short time left to me in the debate, I shall try to get across again what the Government have been doing in the past few weeks.
I have listened closely to what has been said this morning. No one can now be unaware of the intensity of feeling about the future of the United Kingdom coal industry and about jobs in the deep mining industry. I share the concern about pending unemployment and job losses that has been spelt out by—

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I add to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said on the concern about the loss of jobs in the mining industry? I live in the shadow of the Ferrybridge power station, with the Eggborough power station down the road. If the mines close, those power stations will also close. Jobs will be lost not just in the mining industry but in the electricity generating industry.

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has made a good point. There will be an impact throughout the energy sector.
Today's sense of crisis is informed by the current negotiations between RJB Mining and the electricity generators on their coal contracts for after April 1998. We have all agreed in the debate that the negotiations are a matter for the companies. I am not party to them. I understand that an agreement has been reached with


Eastern Electricity and that an announcement was made this morning of an agreement with National Power. I do not know what stage conversations with PowerGen have reached because the company does not know and neither does PowerGen. It is up to the parties to those contracts to negotiate. No doubt, we shall be informed of the deal when they reach one.
We opposed the ravaging of the coal industry under the Conservatives. That happened when the pits, the power generators and the grid system were in the public sector, and the energy buying system now known as the pool— now also in the private sector—did not exist. That is the difference between now and 1992. We resisted that Tory privatisation when they were out to kill the coal industry. No one claimed that the situation was easy. We picked up that horrendous legacy, which, I accept, is not easy to deal with.
There is no quick fix that will solve the problems simply. Hon. Members have repeated the comments of those throughout the industry, including trade union leaders, whom I have met regularly, that they want fairness, not favours. Our objective is to deliver that fairness. One or two siren voices—not least RJB—have called for subsidy, but I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood ruling it out and expressing surprise that anyone should ask for it. RJB has written to me demanding a subsidy. I find it hard to give a direct cash subsidy to a company that made profits before interest and tax of £207 million in 1996.

Caroline Flint: I visited Rossington colliery in my constituency recently. The managers and miners of that colliery, which is owned by RJB Mining, said that they did not want subsidy. They wanted a level playing field. They have worked hard to make the pit competitive. Whatever is being said at a senior level, they want a decent chance to continue to work.

Mr. Battle: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says on behalf of her constituents, but I have a letter from RJB, signed by the man himself, with the word, "Subsidy" at the head. The message of what the company is asking for may not have been communicated to all the coalfields. I accept that difference.
I do not believe that a subsidy is the way forward. It would be incompatible with arguing for a level playing field for the industry and making fair space in the market for the deep coal industry. We should not give a cash subsidy to a profitable private company, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said in the Chamber a few weeks ago.
At the end of last month, I explained to the House in detail the actions that we had taken against subsidies paid by the Spanish and German Governments to their coal industries. We have lodged a formal complaint against that state aid. I do not remember the Conservatives laying a formal complaint about state aid to overseas coal industries in all their years in office. We made that complaint within six months of coming into office. We are working hard to ensure a fair market, so that British coal can win markets in Europe, where subsidies have been keeping it out.
I am glad that hon. Members have recognised that we have set up a review of the pool. That was one of our six points. We said that we would examine the ways in which the mechanism for buying and selling electricity worked to ensure that it was not stacked against the coal industry.
Two or three of my hon. Friends have focused particularly on gas contracts and ending the rigged market for gas. I accept that we must take immediate action on that important point. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the utility buyers' letter and the body of opinion that is forming to challenge what are called the contracts for differences. Those contracts for differences will be considered in the review of the electricity pool system, but we have already asked the regulator to examine long-term take-or-pay gas contracts for the supply of gas to the early gas-fired power stations to prevent those high costs being passed on in full to domestic consumers.
That will not prevent gas-fired power stations being forced to run under the terms of their contracts. A key part of the coal industry's complaint to the European Commission was that at least some contracts may have prohibited gas-fired power stations from re-selling gas to the gas market even when it was uneconomic to run it through power stations. That may have forced the generators to use gas in power stations when they might have preferred to sell it to other gas customers and have bought coal-fired electricity in from the pool instead. We want to ensure that there is coal-fired, not all gas-fired, electricity in the pool.
There is an argument that our competition authorities should immediately consider, without prejudice to any investigation that the Commission may mount, whether the prohibition on the re-sale of gas is anti-competitive and, if so, what remedies and amendments are appropriate. If there is a distortion of competition to price out coal, I want it put right now. The Director General of Gas Supply will consider the matter urgently. A press notice about that new action will be available from the Vote Office after the debate. We shall take action on that now.
We have approved some gas-fired power stations and I understand that there are 27 more applications waiting. However, those that have already been approved could take three to four years to get into commission. A moratorium on new gas-fired stations now would not benefit the coal industry until well after 2000. It would slow down the move towards combined heat and power. The damage of the dash to gas has already been done, creating the short-term problems that the industry faces.

Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Battle: No, I cannot. I have only two minutes left.
We have no intention of waving through new applications for gas-fired power stations. We shall consider them on a case-by-case basis, looking in particular at combined heat and power proposals.
We are backing clean-coal technology. We are investing money in investigating the possibilities of it. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that we need to consider its potential internationally, so that the ancillary industries in mining also have a future.
We are told that we are doing nothing, but we have taken action to challenge subsidies in Europe, we have set up a review of the pool to ensure that coal is not priced out, we have challenged the gas contracts to ensure that the markets are not weighted against coal and we have put the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill through the House to challenge the energy coming through the interconnector from France, so that French nuclear power does not have an advantage. We have also challenged the advantage given to the nuclear industry in Britain to ensure that the playing field is level, not tilted against the coal industry. We are backing clean-coal technology as well because, without that, the coal industry will remain under pressure from environmental concerns in the next century.
Yes, our primary aim is to ensure that the mining industry and coal can play an important part in our energy supplies as we move into the next century. It can contribute to UK and European fuel and energy security. Our job is to create a level playing field for coal. We are working hard to ensure that the market is not stacked against coal either in Europe or here at home.
I do not believe that it is time to write off the coal industry. There is a still a long-term future for the deep mining industry in Britain. Our positive actions to that effect will go some way to assisting it. Rather than mongering a crisis, it is up to others to get on with negotiating contracts and access to markets for the coal that is mined, ensuring that pits that do not need to be shut are not shut.

NHS (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the Minister and his colleagues are aware, health provision in Cornwall is facing huge cuts. Local hospitals in particular face the axe—although we must not forget that Treliske hospital and other central patient care services are being forced to make savings too. That has led to a tidal wave of local concern and protest. For every local closure there is a local protest group. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is on his way now to support one in advance of tonight's consultation meeting. One group is not pitted against another; they support each other, one and all, as people in Cornwall have always done. They want a fairer deal for the county's NHS. I shall explain why they believe that it is not getting one.
To take a local example, the Penrice maternity unit in St. Austell faces the axe. It is the only place where women in Cornwall can have their child outside the high-tech and expensive facilities of Treliske. By comparison, Devon has nine delivery units. The Exeter area alone has four— mostly used less than Penrice, although we are told that the use of Penrice is too low to support its continuation. Government policy favours such units, and just months ago plans were agreed for new buildings for Penrice maternity unit. Now it faces the axe.
I shall read some comments that have been written in the visitors' book since the closure was announced. One says:
I am expecting my third child and after having my second child here, I was impressed with the care and time given to me.
Such comments are made repeatedly about Penrice. Another reads:
The care and attention given to my wife when Alexander was born 3 years ago was first class and the principal reason for her choosing Penrice again. Residents in North Cornwall have enormous distances to travel for hospital care—keep Penrice open.
The most recent comment in the book says:
Having just had my first baby daughter here at Penrice, I feel very strongly about keeping this maternity unit open. From the first minute I arrived and was taken into the delivery room I was made to feel relaxed and at home. With the help and advice of all the staff, I stayed calm and was able to deliver our baby naturally. It would have been very stressful to travel to Truro to deliver her. After the birth I was given all the care, attention and advice I could have wished for, from everybody. After my five day stay, I felt ready to go home and start my new life as a mother, because of all the care I received here. Truro is a much needed unit, but it would be a terrible mistake to close it. Please keep Penrice open. We need it.
Those comments speak for themselves. I could have read any number from the visitors' book to illustrate the level of local support.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I placed in context NHS services in Cornwall. Cornwall is Britain's lowest-wage economy, and is for the most part badly served by public transport. Our communities are dispersed across a relatively large area. In recognition of that, most public services, including local government, the police, and, more recently, the fire service, have long benefited from substantial allowances for the extra costs arising from the need to serve a scattered population. That is only right. The local provision of services for people living in such rural areas necessarily entails a higher cost. Yet traditionally, the Government have made no such allowance for the NHS.
The costs are exacerbated by the fact that Cornwall is surrounded on all sides by water. Most of the county simply cannot rely in an emergency on other hospitals just across the border to the north, west, or south. Yet NHS funding in Cornwall has traditionally been very low in comparison with the rest of the country.
In Scotland, each person benefits to the tune of £514 each year, and in Wales the figure is £546 per person. Both Scotland and Wales exhibit similar features to Cornwall, with areas that are remote, surrounded by water and served by poor transport infrastructure. Yet inhabitants in Cornwall enjoy just £441 per person for our NHS—around a fifth less.
To make a comparison closer to home, Somerset, with the same population, has two district general hospitals, but Cornwall has one. With only twice our population, Devon has four. I hope that the Minister agrees that there is a discrepancy in the figures. No wonder our local NHS is overstretched. The prospect of another £5 million-worth of budget savings is making Cornish people angry. That is the context in which the health authority must act.
Neither the trusts nor the health authority have a deficit. There has been a shortfall of funds of up to £5 million a year in recent years—but it has been plugged by using non-recurring funds and money held in reserve. The £5 million shortfall was reported publicly a year ago, and a shortfall of between £3 million and £4 million before that was reported publicly as long ago as the end of the 1995–96 financial year. The problem is not new, although it has grown as demands on our hospitals have increased. It is one of which the Government have been very much aware, although I accept that it is a legacy of the previous Conservative Government, which Labour Ministers have had only six months to address. Now, however, our local NHS has been told to close the gap—a £5 million saving every year.
Against that financial backdrop, admissions of all types have risen by a quarter in Cornwall in just five years, from 85,000 to more than 115,000. That puts tremendous pressure on overstretched doctors and nurses, and, as I am sure we can all imagine, the effects are even more marked given the extra costs of maintaining local hospitals in rural areas such as those in Cornwall. A further stark indication of the pressures on the services in Cornwall is that emergency admissions have increased at an even faster rate—by 16 per cent. in just three years, which is substantially faster than in surrounding health authority areas.
As may be expected, waiting lists have increased as a result of that pressure. In Cornwall, the increase has been by more than 3,000, leaving us with more than 13,000 people on waiting lists in October this year. The number of those waiting more than 12 months has increased by more than 6,000 per cent.—a rise from just seven people in October last year to 447 people this year. That is a huge increase by anybody's standards. For example, I have been trying to help people blinded by cataracts who, with a simple operation, could see again but who face a sightless wait of 12 to 18 months for treatment, which may come too late. That is happening even without the proposed financial cuts.
Demand has risen and waiting lists have grown longer—and grow longer daily. I hope that most people would recognise a clear need to expand capacity to meet

the demand on services and reduce waiting lists. The Government's announcement that they are transferring funds from other Departments this winter to help across the NHS—including Cornwall—is welcome. We argued for that and it will help to make a difference this winter, but it will not resolve the long-term plans that are affected by the proposed cuts.
As waiting lists have gone up, bed availability has gone down. In 1991, average bed availability was nearly 2,000 beds. By this year, that figure had already fallen below 1,700. Although the number of acute beds has been increased by a couple of hundred, we still have an average of fewer than 1,000 daily acute beds serving the entire population of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The number of daily geriatric beds has already fallen from almost 400 to just over 300—in a county with an above-average and rapidly increasing elderly population. Some of the most distressing letters that I have received on this issue have been from those who care for patients with Alzheimer's disease, who are extremely concerned about the loss of provision, especially local provision that would allow them to visit patients and stay in contact. The average number of daily beds for mental illness has already been cut by more than 200—from more than 550 to just 341.
The problem is compounded by the lack of provision of alternatives that are desired by the health authority, but which it cannot afford to fund. Of course, all those pressures are compounded by the march of medical technology and the increased demand generated by improvements in medical treatment afforded by new drugs and treatment. The county also expects to face cuts to its social services provision that will affect its ability to provide residential and nursing care beds to take people out of hospitals. That in turn places more pressure on hospitals.

Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend will know that, on behalf of my North Cornwall constituents, I warmly support all the points that he has made. He referred to the county council. Can he confirm that, at the council's meeting yesterday, it agreed to make representations to the Secretary of State for Health to reverse the shortfall in funding for the NHS? The vote was unanimous, with the exception of the Labour group. It is important to make it clear that it is not only my constituents and I who support my hon. Friend's points but—to all intents and purposes—the people of Cornwall.

Mr. Taylor: It is a shame that the Labour group did not support the motion, but one understands the constraints it felt because the party is now in government. At local level, many Labour party members have campaigned to save local services and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) has supported the services in her constituency. The vote may not have been unanimous at the county council, but the Minister of State should be under no illusions about the views of his supporters.
That is the situation faced by inhabitants of Cornwall, before we even consider the latest round of threatened cuts. The service strategy on which we are being consulted proposes the closure of four community hospitals and the maternity unit at Penrice, as well as the axing of a further 129 beds. That is not the end of the story. Other services such as rheumatology are to be restricted.
The health authority has been a dealt a dead man's hand. It must choose between the provision of acute and non-acute services; between emergency treatment and preventive treatment; and between one vital local hospital and another. Clearly, that is unacceptable, so it is a relief to discover that, for the first time in a long time—as we try to pick a way through this mire of bed cuts, budget cuts and increasing waiting lists—we in Cornwall have a sympathetic ear at the Department of Health. It is a relief because it is vital that we develop a clear strategy for dealing with the crisis that is swamping health services in Cornwall.
The Minister may say that the reaction is not just sympathy and that things have changed. Well, they have changed a bit. It is true that, for the first time, next year's NHS funding will make an allowance for our scattered geography. An element of allowance has been allowed for our extra ambulance service mileage. That is a significant step forward and more than was achieved under the previous Administration. Naturally, having argued for it, I welcome it.
However, I hope that the Minister agrees with me that the increase is in no way enough. Other formula changes have actually cut our allocation. Overall, the effect on the provision of cash for the NHS in Cornwall was to raise the formula allocation by just 0.01 per cent. In other words, for every £100 Cornwall previously received for our NHS, we have gained just lp next year. Even taking that increase together with the extra national NHS funding announced for next year—in which we will share—we are only £400,000 better off than previously expected. That money is welcome, but against the prospect of £5 million cuts it will do no more than help save perhaps a few threatened services. It will not come close to sorting out the major part of the cuts, let alone the general underfunding of the NHS in Cornwall, which the community health council put at £10 million even before the cuts.
I suggest that we must focus on three key areas. The first priority must be to make clear, in the public's mind and our own, the lines of responsibility for the closing of the community hospitals in Cornwall. It has been widely reported that the chairman of the health authority would close the hospitals regardless. That has been an unfortunate misrepresentation of what was said and has served to muddle the debate. The health authority has made it quite clear, while making no guarantees about the security of individual services, that, if extra money was on offer, it would revisit and change the proposals in its consultation document.

Ms Candy Atherton: I welcome the debate, because it addresses an important issue for the people of Cornwall. There has been a debate about exactly what the chief executive and the chairman of the health authority have said. Both the hon. Gentleman and I remember a meeting with those two gentlemen at which I explicitly asked, "If there was no financial problem for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, would you propose to close the four hospitals?" My office has a complete note of the meeting and both the chairman and the chief executive replied, categorically, "Yes." I hope that other hon. Members will confirm that. The chief

executive and chairman subsequently appeared on Westcountry Television and made similar points. Now they appear to be changing their tune, and that is typical.

Mr. Taylor: My understanding is that the chairman and chief executive have always said that they believe changes are needed. That is not the same as saying that they would close everything that it has been proposed should close. Indeed, they would look to open other services to replace some of those that might have closed.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor: I cannot give way, because I am running out of time. I do not want to cut the Minister's reply too short.
To make the position clear, I shall quote the chief executive's letter of 18 November, which states:
I am purported to have said that if the Health Authority had limitless funds, we would still look to close all 4 hospitals which our consultation document proposes should be closed—I have never made such a statement.
However, the biggest element of confusion in the whole sorry mess is the assertion that the health authority could somehow take that decision unilaterally. As the Minister is fully aware, the final decision to close hospitals will be taken nationally, irrespective of the wishes of the chief executive. It is for the Secretary of State to decide the ultimate fate of Cornish hospitals. Indeed, the Secretary of State accepted that when Cornish Members of Parliament met him two weeks ago. There should be no confusion on the point.
Our second priority must be to make up the short-term funds that the health authority is so desperately lacking. John Banham has today proposed a 12-month moratorium. It is no good being told that the Government hope to help in the long run, if hospitals are closed this spring. Once shut, everybody knows that they will not open again. The voters of Cornwall resoundingly rejected the party of health cuts at the general election. They expect, and deserve, the NHS locally to be saved, just as the Prime Minister promised it would be before election day.
Given the Chancellor's announcement yesterday that there are funds to accommodate a cut to a 10p starting rate of income tax from April, resources are obviously available. The Chancellor also said that he has funds to cut business taxes to the lowest in Europe, so there must be even more resources available. The right hon. Gentleman has the option of using just a fraction of those funds to stop the closures. Lack of funds is not now— if it ever was—an excuse. Even if the funding were not permanent, it would give the health service the chance to find other solutions and win long-term extra funding.
Our third priority must be to establish a fairer way of distributing resources for the long term, so that such a crisis never returns. It is not just a question of Cornwall's rurality. Cornwall's services also suffer, as has already been indicated, by reason of its large coastline. Given the nature of that coastline, a journey to a place 10 minutes away as the crow flies can take four times that long once the streams, creeks and rivers that interrupt road and rail links are circumnavigated. Our people are a long way from district general hospitals—as much as 70 miles in some cases.
Cornwall provides a real example of the crucial need for fundamental reform of the needs assessment of our heath authorities. It cannot be right that the net effect of the formula changes is that Cornwall should get just lp in every £100 to address those geographical problems. By introducing any help at all, it is true that the Government have made a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. I believe that Ministers recognise that and I hope that that recognition will be backed by real resources.
The local medical committee sums the situation up in its press statement of 20 November:
The LMC on behalf of GPs throughout Cornwall and the Isles of Stilly believes that it is not possible to take £5 million funding out of local health services provision without causing severe and enduring damage.
GPs are unhappy with the Health Authority's current proposals to achieve these savings. We remain convinced that reducing the total number of hospital beds in the county can only increase the existing bed crisis in the District General Hospitals at Treliske, Derriford and Barnstaple. However, we believe any alternative scheme to make the same savings may have an equal or even more damaging effect upon patient care.
In other words, Ministers will have to choose in the spring, for the decision will be theirs: cut our NHS in Cornwall in one way or another, or find us extra resources—in the short term to keep the hospitals open, and in the long term to create a fair funding system.
I know that that is not easy, given the Chancellor's spending rules, but it is a simple hard truth that sometimes the only way to save a service that has been cut to the bone is to provide an injection of real cash. I realise that that will not be an easy choice for Ministers but, as I know that they will have to fight for it, I hope that they will agree that it is an option worth fighting for.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate. This is an important subject, and I know the strength of feeling shared not only by Members on both sides of the House but in the local community, about the situation facing the health authority in Cornwall.
I am also aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has made crystal clear today, that the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority is underfunded. He will recall that I met him and some of his colleagues some months ago to discuss those issues, and I know that they have had the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State. They will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), too, has had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the Secretary of State and me, and to express her own strong feelings about the concerns in the local community.
It may be helpful if I deal with the issues raised in two parts—first the funding issues and then the health authority's proposals. I must say at the outset that the Government believe that health need should be the driving force in determining where national health service cash goes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to the fundamental principle of fairness, and to tackling inequalities in health.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would share my view that over recent years that approach has been sadly lacking in our national health service. We are determined to deal with that problem. I hope that he will also share my belief that there are no instant cures, no magic wands and no pots of gold. None the less, the Government will make determined progress year on year to achieve a better health service in all parts of the country.
That is why we have made the changes to the formula for allocating money to health authorities for next year. From 1 April resources will be allocated on the basis of health, social and economic need. The needs weighting has been increased to cover 100 per cent. of spending. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes those changes as a step in the right direction.
I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome two other changes that we have made to the formula. He dealt with one of those; may I briefly talk about both? The issue that he did not raise is the market forces factor, although he has expressed concern about it in the past, and raised it with me when we met some months ago.
The hon. Gentleman is not alone in expressing doubts about the operation of that element in the current formula. We have listened carefully to what trusts, health authorities and community health councils throughout the country have said about the distortions that the MFF brings.
As an interim step we have reduced the number of pay zones for 1998–99, smoothing out the starker variations created by the MFF. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that will make a considerable difference—£1.8 million—to the funding target for Cornwall. I can offer him some assurance about further changes, too, because we have asked the new advisory committee on resource allocation, which the Government have established, to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the market forces factor. Indeed, that will be its work priority for the next year or so.
Secondly, we have taken into account the rural concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised, involving the extra cost of providing health care. As a result of research findings, the formula for next year will be adjusted to take into account the additional costs of providing emergency ambulance services. That will make a difference of £1 million to the funding target for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.
That will not be the end of the story. We shall also ask the advisory committee to investigate over the next year the impact of rurality on resource allocation. I know that there is impatience, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that we must get such things right. The formula has been fiddled with too much the past, with too many tweakings at the margins. We must bring greater stability to the health service not only in Cornwall but throughout the country, so that the people understand, and health authorities and trusts can plan on the basis of the resources that will be made available to them.

Mr. Tyler: Because so many of those important changes will take a little time to introduce, will the Minister seriously consider Sir John Banham's suggestion of a moratorium on the existing cuts and closure plans?

Mr. Milburn: As I understand it, when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues met the Secretary of State


they agreed with him that as the consultations had begun, it was sensible for them to continue. I shall return to the subject of consultation and how it will be handled at the end of my speech, if I get time—but I understood that that was the common agreement reached, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to undo it at this stage.
We shall examine the formula in detail. I cannot promise the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell that the review of the formula will produce benefits for Cornwall specifically, but I can say that the outcome will be fairer than the present state of affairs.
Over the next year we shall try to ensure that the formula takes proper account of real population levels and the extra cost of providing services for ethnic minority communities. As I said, we are determined that NHS resources should be allocated fairly. I know that the hon. Gentleman will support that approach.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the target set by the formula is only part of the story. The distribution of growth money is just as important in determining what health authorities get to spend on local health services. For 1998–99 we used 60 per cent. of the available growth money to bring below-target health authorities nearer to their needs-based target, which reflects our desire for greater equity.
That all means that in the next financial year Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority will receive £277.5 million—marginally more than its needs-based target. I know that Opposition Members are fixated by real-terms increases, so I can tell them that that is a real-terms increase of £4.1 million—the highest such increase for five years and the highest percentage increase in the whole south-west region. It is substantially higher than the average percentage increase for Cornwall over the preceding five years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will really welcome that. We are making a difference and we shall continue to make a difference.
That is not all. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority will get £1.85 million extra to cope with pressures this year, as part of the winter boost for the NHS. Much, or at least part, of that money will be used to break down the Berlin walls that have developed over recent years between health and social care institutions.
There will be more money for home care packages, and more for additional beds and for tackling delays in discharge from hospital.
Cornwall county council has been mentioned, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will take back a firm message to members of the Liberal Democrat party who serve on that council: it takes two to tango. When relationships break down and the health service and social services do not co-operate as fully as they should—that is what has happened in Cornwall under the hon. Gentleman's party's tutelage—it is vulnerable patients, elderly patients, disabled patients and patients with mental illness who suffer and pay the price.
Will Liberal Democrat Members take that message back and make it clear to their local councillors that the onus is now on them to co-operate rather than to compete? I hope that the message will be taken seriously. We shall increase resources year on year for the health service.
As for the consultation, I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and others have said, but they will understand that as the proposals may come to Ministers for decision, it is not appropriate for me to comment in detail now.
What I will say is that it is the health authority's duty to ensure that it has the best possible services to meet the challenges that lie ahead. That means living within the resources available.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned the chief executive's comments on television. I have had the pleasure of reading the transcript. I have read it two or three times during these proceedings and what he said is clear. Three times, he said that even if he had the money those proposals would still come forward. So, let us be clear. There is a difference between the proposals and the funding situation, which is clearly difficult for the health authority. It would be wrong and politically negligent to try to conflate two issues as some have sought to do. When the results of the consultation come back to Ministers, we will bear in mind the strong feelings that have been expressed in this place and, perhaps more importantly, by the local community.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We must now move on to the debate on the future of county council smallholdings.

County Council Smallholdings

1 pm

Mr. David Drew: Hon. Members will be aware of the major contribution played by the agricultural tenanted sector to farm production, rural development and our rural environment. Indeed, our landlord-tenant system is largely unique within Europe. No other member state of the European Union has a landlord-tenant system like ours. For centuries, landlords have let land, and tenants have taken land and formed useful and binding agreements through tenancy agreements for the effective and profitable farming of large parts of our agricultural landscape.
In the past, Members of this House and of another place have taken it upon themselves to regulate the way in which farm tenancies operate, most recently by the introduction of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. Although the area of land covered by tenancy agreements is now only around 30 per cent. of the total agricultural area of this country, agricultural tenancies still provide a stable framework beneficial to both landlords and tenants within which farming activity can progress profitably.
Many new entrants into industry find it difficult to get a foothold in their chosen business sector. However, the capital requirement of agriculture makes it one of the most difficult industries to start up in. Tenancy agreements offer a useful and effective way of bringing in new entrants, since the capital requirement at risk is shared jointly between landlord and tenant in long-term binding partnerships. Thus, the farm tenancy environment is advantageous to new entrants, and ensures that farming remains open to those without enormous family resources at their disposal. Therefore, it is a system that should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It may be helpful to set the context for this debate if I briefly outline the history of smallholdings. I am sure in starting this that hon. Members will be somewhat surprised to learn that their history dates back to the Small Holdings Act 1892, when local authority agricultural estates were first initiated. They received a tremendous boost after the end of world war one, when smallholdings were seen as one of the tangible parts of the policy that emphasised a land fit for heroes. It was then that county councils were first given responsibility for their provision and organisation. Their incorporation into local government remained somewhat ad hoc until the Agriculture Act 1970. That consolidated local authorities' responsibility by giving them a discretionary power, which constituted a major recognition of their value.
For instance, smallholdings authorities were formally given the power to provide land for the purposes of smallholdings for persons who are, or will shortly become, qualified by reason of their agricultural experience to farm a holding on their own account. Authorities also have the power to provide, improve, maintain and repair fixed equipment on land held for the purpose of smallholdings.
The 1970 Act requires that the general aim of smallholdings authorities—having regard to the general interests of agriculture and of good estate management— shall be to provide opportunities for persons, who would not otherwise have the opportunity, to be farmers on their own account, by letting holdings to them. Thus was established the so-called gateway principle.
The 1970 Act required authorities to prepare long-term plans for the management of smallholdings estates, to provide larger holdings by reorganisation and amalgamation. That created the so-called ladder principle, whereby tenants could move upwards and onwards, either within the county council holdings or elsewhere. Such plans for reorganisation and any subsequent revisions had to be submitted for approval to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Regulations made under the 1970 Act lay down that applicants for smallholdings must have a specified minimum period of practical experience and/or formal training, and that holdings must be let at open market value. Following the 1970 Act, there was a considerable improvement in revenue yield for the next 10 years. Rental income yields increased primarily as a result of increased productivity in the farming industry and because of the Act's requirement for open market value rents.
The Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 withdrew the right of succession on new tenancies in the private sector— such rights have never applied to county farms—and gave power to grant licences, subject to the approval of the Minister, of between two and five years. The Act also introduced retirement of tenants on council holdings at the age of 65, which had not previously been possible, in an attempt to increase tenant turnover, subject to provision by the landlord of suitable alternative residential accommodation. It should be noted, however, that that legislation did not apply retrospectively, and, as a consequence, local authorities have no powers to force the retirement of individuals possessing pre-1984 tenancy agreements, irrespective of their age.
In response to the significant decline in land made available for agricultural tenancies in the past decade, central Government introduced the 1995 Act, which has led to farm business tenancies. That fixes the lease of a holding, for the first time, for a specified period. The idea is to free up existing restrictive practices in respect of landlord-tenant contracts. The reform was welcomed across the industry, but it is still too early to be able to evaluate its repercussions, although clearly it should have a major impact on county farm estates.
Against that background, I must draw the attention of the House to concerns being expressed about the future of county council smallholdings—in particular, the threatened sell-off of those estates by cash-strapped county councils. In doing so, I remind hon. Members of Section 39 of the 1970 Act, which required that county councils,
having regard to the general interests of agriculture and of good estate management, shall make it their general aim to provide opportunities for persons to be farmers on their own account by letting holdings to them".
With around 5,500 tenants on 130,000 hectares of land, more than £23 million in rents every year and an accumulated level of capital receipts from the sale of land of £277 million, county council tenancies have formed a vital part of the backbone of the let sector of this country. In terms of size, that far outstrips the industrial farms of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Velcourt and Sentry, even if it is divided up many times.
I have some understanding and experience of the importance of county council estates, as, when I was previously a Gloucestershire county councillor, I chaired a major review into the future of that estate.
Gloucestershire's estate is the 13th largest in area, comprising some 3,500 hectares, spread through a total of 150 holdings, 93 per cent. of which are principal holdings.
The review marked an important stage in the estate's development. Although at first its future was very much in doubt because of evidence that had accrued, the final report completely dismissed that approach, and ended up as a ringing endorsement of the value of keeping the estate within the local authority family. I shall use that experience to exemplify what I believe to be right about county council smallholdings, and to explain why it is essential that they are kept in being.
Of course, not all county councils are considering selling their estates. Indeed, some are still involved in purchasing new holdings for let. In that respect, I commend Devon county council, which has a forward-thinking policy on its statutory smallholdings estate. However, some authorities have already disposed of their estates, and others are seriously contemplating the possibility of selling all, or a significant proportion of their farms.
For example, Wiltshire county council is considering selling all its 40 or so holdings, and, most notably, North Yorkshire county council has been looking to sell its full estate of 4,400 hectares. That will mark a worrying precedent, for it is the first of the very big estates to come into the sell-off frame.
The Tenant Farmers Association—the representative organisation for tenant farmers in England and Wales— has been fighting to promote the retention of county farm estates. Indeed, the TFA's chief executive, Mr. George Dunn, tells me that he has been in correspondence with both the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Minister of Agriculture has now replied to him, and I hope that the Government, through the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), might be able to add to his comments during this debate.
It was unfortunate that the 1995 rural White Paper, produced by the last Government, gave such little regard to county farm estates, with less than a page of coverage and then only to propose that county councils could use a greater proportion of the funds gained through the sale of county farms than they had previously been allowed to do.
Although the provision runs out in March next year, and few county councils have taken advantage of it for other than tidying-up operations, it has focused the attention of some authorities on the value that they could realise from their estate assets.
The drive towards sales under the private finance initiative has led to its own problems. I understand that North Yorkshire has severely overestimated the value of its estate, suggesting that it is worth about £65 million. The concern is that such uninformed figures can result in decisions being taken on misleading valuations, and create the wrong result, but I am pleased to inform the House that North Yorkshire county council is now conducting an independent valuation of its estate.
Although smallholdings are meant to provide opportunities for new entrants, they are often criticised because tenants, at least under the old legislation, had security for life. The introduction of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 provided a real opportunity for county councils to consider restructuring their holdings to

create starter units on shorter-term agreements, progressive units on medium-term agreements, and full units on longer-term agreements. Some authorities are taking that opportunity, but others are interested only in the opportunities for sale.
At the very time when farm business tenancies should be encouraging greater movement of tenants, the threat of sales will stultify that movement, as tenants are tempted to sit tight. Sales can be achieved only on the basis of vacant possession, so only when the existing tenancy is at an end can the new owner get possession of the land. There is little incentive for a tenant to go elsewhere, as the new terms could be far worse than the existing ones.
There is undoubtedly an enormous temptation for councils to cast an accountant's eye over their smallholdings, when their financial circumstances are increasingly harsh. Some may even have a potential conflict of interest, when fulfilling their role as strategic planning authorities and making provision for their area's share of the 4.4 million homes tempts them to increase the land value of their holdings.
There is a clear need to restate the benefits of local authority smallholdings and to defend the belief that there is a coherent policy that links opportunities for young farmers, the rural economy and the environment. For that I am reliant on the rationale of the counties themselves; they have produced an excellent sheet of criteria that predicate the continuing existence of their farm estates.
To support for the farmers through the gateway and progression principles, one could add the opportunity to enter into enhanced arrangements on larger farms, perhaps moving to owner-occupation. The 1995 Act will reinvigorate such activities. The estates are also a valuable source of employment in rural areas, either directly through farming or via exciting new business and community opportunities on estate land. They remain a key catalyst for the wider economic development of the countryside.
If handled carefully, farms can retain their asset value as part of a effective bank of land that can be used when and where appropriate, especially for initiatives such as social housing, which is desperately needed in our rural areas. They are still a cash cow for local authorities, providing revenue streams from operational trading accounts managed along commercially viable lines.
A primary factor for the farms' retention is the strategic control that they offer county councils in rural areas, allowing them to influence development and the maintenance of the countryside. They allow a stake in environmental, conservation and countryside management, retaining the best in terms of the maintenance of hedgerows, ditches, watercourses, and even the built environment, through the occupation of farm buildings that might otherwise be declared redundant. Of course, only tenants can be compelled, without Government involvement, through their tenancy agreements, to care for the landscape.
Smallholdings provide the best interface with the general public by the encouragement of proper access, the opportunity to provide excellent educational resources and the knowledge that wider communities can share in the enhancement of rural areas through the democratic process.
There are, besides the immediate pressing issue of the threat of sales, other problems caused by the ad hoccery in the system. For instance, with rents rising generally in


the industry, while incomes have been far less buoyant, rents on county smallholdings have started to increase more quickly.
A key reason for that is the rate of return recommended by the Audit Commission, of 6 per cent. on net asset values. Experts agree that that is high for a return on property, and it is ratcheting rents upwards. There is a variation in how different authorities approach the rate of return. I am especially interested in the Minister's views on that, as tenants are worried that they face an unfair burden, given the mess left by his Conservative predecessors.
Other performance indicators are being implemented in widely different ways. That may add to the industry's competitive edge but it is sometimes neither fair nor reasonable. It also determines where the line between full-time and part-time tenancies may be drawn.
Tenant selection remains one of the most important factors behind success but, given the limited number of opportunities available, new entrants are tempted to bid up key rents, not only damaging their own prospects but suggesting to landlords that they can expect even higher rents from their existing tenants. There is also a strong feeling among tenants that farm business tenancies are being offered for too short a period.
Allied to higher rents, that is causing uncertainty and resentment. The legacy of the local government review has yet to bed down completely in the sector, and smaller estates are much more vulnerable to sale. We have yet to anticipate how the operation of compulsory competitive tendering, or best value, will translate to the sector.
The county council smallholdings are a vital national asset, but they are in the hands of county councils, albeit under a statutory duty, and there is a lack of consistency of treatment across the country. That is why I tend to support the proposal of the Tenant Farmers Association that there should be a national review of the strategic importance of the county farms sector to agriculture and the rural economy and environment.
Before that review takes place and produces its report, there should be a moratorium on all sales of county farms. I know that the Government may not be willing or able to enforce that, but if, via my hon. Friend, a clear position of support for the smallholdings' continuation is set out, I am sure that local government will respond positively to the prompting.
I am not saying that I believe that county farms should never be sold. There will be instances when, for good estate management, development, or other purposes, individual farms or groups of farms may need to be sold, but a general evaluation of their benefits to the agricultural sector must be undertaken before we allow any large-scale sale of holdings.
I urge my hon. Friend to encourage such a review and moratorium. Otherwise, we will be faced with another example of selling the silver for coppers, when keeping it would produce far greater rewards in the long run.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud

(Mr. Drew) on the way in which he has put his case. I know that the issue is of particular interest to the farming community and farming organisations. His case has great support, for the reasons that he has outlined, and especially as smallholdings are seen as the first step on the ladder for those who want to go into agriculture as a career.
I want to give a broad outline of the background, and put the issue in context. I should say, for the record, that the Government recognise the important role of county council smallholdings, and we endorse what my hon. Friend said. I certainly hope that our endorsement will influence county councils' decisions.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has main responsibility for county farms, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has an interest through the provisions of Local Government Act 1972, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Local government finance considerations govern councils' powers to dispose of land and other capital assets.
MAFF has statutory agricultural obligations: principally, approving estate reorganisation plans, but also submitting an annual report to Parliament on smallholdings. I stress that neither MAFF nor DETR Ministers have any statutory powers to prevent the disposal of smallholdings if councils are so inclined. The Agriculture Act 1970 makes it a general aim for local councils to encourage smallholdings and provide opportunities for persons with sufficient experience to be farmers on their own account, but I stress that there is no specific obligation on local authorities.
The previous Government were concerned about the low turnover of tenancies. In the 1995 rural White Paper, however, they did announce that local authorities would be encouraged to make a balanced assessment of the future role, management and ownership of their farms. That was to be achieved through a special scheme in which the amount of set-aside on receipts from any sales of farms fell from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent., if the receipts were received between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1998. Under the scheme, authorities are required to give sitting tenants the opportunity to purchase before farms are offered for sale to third parties. That is only right and proper.
When the announcement was made—we were in opposition at the time—we criticised it because we thought it a clear signal from the Conservative Government that they did not think smallholdings very important. It was clearly a green light to local authorities to dispose of smallholdings in an unwarranted fashion.
Subject to part III of the Agriculture Act 1970, smallholdings authorities are free to manage their estates as they see fit. They are obviously in a good position to do so in the light of local circumstances. Councils have no obligation to seek ministerial approval of any proposed estates disposals, but, as my hon. Friend said, many local authorities have pursued positive policies of retention, and are to be congratulated on encouraging the development of smallholdings.
Concern has been expressed in farming circles to the effect that in recent years county farms have not been very effective in helping new entrants to agriculture. At a conference held by the Royal Institution of


Chartered Surveyors in January 1994, county council representatives showed that there were differing views as to the retention of county farms and their future management. There was, however, a consensus on the need to continue to take decisions at local, not national level—a general principle that we would endorse.
There was also concern about the size of smallholdings with respect to the viability of certain units in modern agriculture, in view of the pressures and changes to which it is subject.
The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 may help to deal with some of these problems. We are conducting a policy evaluation of the Act, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that review will include a consideration of the role of county farms. It may also be possible to examine the issue of rent calculations, depending on the terms of reference. I should point out in fairness that the recommendation has come from the district auditor, so it falls within local government legislation governing best practice for councils.
We may also have to consider the wider question of new entrants to the agriculture sector in a further study—depending on the outcome of the review of the 1995 Act. When that Act was introduced, we expressed some anxieties about it, but we made it clear that we would give it time to settle in, to see whether it would achieve its objectives of releasing more land for rent. That in turn would allow greater opportunities to new entrants, and would help those already in the sector to expand. The review is a useful chance to discover whether the Act is meeting those objectives.
I am also aware of the views of the Tenant Farmers Association about county council smallholdings. I have met the association a number of times on my regional visits. Its members have put their arguments rationally and reasonably to me, locally and nationally, and we have listened carefully to those representations.
Neither the DETR nor MAFF has the powers to impose a moratorium on sales. Besides, some sales have already taken place, and negotiations have been entered into. It will therefore be difficult, legally speaking, to impose a moratorium until the situation changes on 31 March. So much was made clear to Mr. Dunn of the TFA, in a letter from the Minister of Agriculture.
We also face the practical problem that it would take legislation to bring in a moratorium. It is not realistically possible to find time for such legislation before 31 March 1998, when the scheme ends. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no plans to continue with the scheme once it has ended.
I repeat our desire for a continuation of county farms, and I should like to outline some of what the Government are doing to help. We provide funding for ATB-Landbase, the industry training organisation for agriculture and commercial horticulture, helping to ensure that young people have the right skills to work in the industry. The money supports the ATB-Landbase training helpline, as well as local training infrastructure, the development of recognised qualifications and careers advice. It is clearly important to train young people wanting to go into agriculture, horticulture or livestock.
We have also provided funding arrangements as part of the sector challenge. Over the next three years, this funding will complement MAFF funding in this area. I am pleased to say that some of it will go towards

measures designed to attract young people to farming. We shall also underpin the development of a comprehensive training company audit scheme.
We are also looking into the problem of quotas which faces new entrants. Certain sectors are quota controlled— the dairy and sheep sectors, for instance. That poses a major problem; we are arguing strongly for reform of the quota system within the Agenda 2000 proposals which were recently published by Commissioner Fischler. I am pleased to say that many new sheep and suckler cow farmers already receive free quota. At the same time, the UK continues to press for the replacement of sheep and suckler cow quotas in the long term by a more flexible system such as regional reference ceilings.
The milk sector presents rather more difficulties. Here, new entrants must inherit, buy or lease quota. Providing sufficient milk quota to maintain viable farms is one reason why some county councils restructure their estates from time to time. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the needs of current tenants to make a living— or even to expand—and the demands of people looking to make a start in farming. Should any proposals emerge, we are prepared to consider suggestions for an industry-run new entrants scheme.
We have discussed the issue with farming representatives, and we have raised it in Europe. A report produced by the European Commission last year on "Young Farmers and the Problem of Succession in European Agriculture" will play an important role in stimulating debate in the Community on the measures needed to encourage more young people to take up farming. The average age of farmers in the EU is 55, and rising. We must tackle that if we are to ensure the continued efficiency and prosperity of the industry. We look forward to continuing discussions in Europe.
There is every reason why county farms should once again play an important part in helping new entrants to farming, but we do not underestimate the difficulties—not least of which are size, and the small number of such farms that become available for succession. Unlike certain occasions in the past, councils must respond to the demands of would-be farmers and local taxpayers.
Sound estate management may permit the release of capital for badly needed local initiatives and create genuine opportunities for new entrants. My hon. Friend clearly does not want to fossilise the structure of county council smallholdings; but they must be reorganised so as to provide better opportunities for new entrants. I am quite sure that that is the right approach.
We will, as a Ministry, encourage local authorities to look constructively at ways of addressing the issues. We also believe that the energies and ideas of new entrants need no longer be confined to traditional agriculture on smallholding estates. There could be far greater use of the flexibility in farm business tenancies to offer genuine benefits to new starters and to explore the potential of niche markets, such as the organic sector.
We want to ensure that local councils look at all possible alternatives before considering selling any of their estate. They should listen to the views of bodies such as the Tenant Farmers Association and the Ministry; and they should take into account the case made so ably today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the retention of this important part of agriculture.

Penninghame Open Prison

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise matters that are of great importance, not only to my constituents, but to the wider public. I am also grateful to the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, for attending to respond to my points.
I shall highlight two general issues relating specifically to open prisons in Scotland and arising from incidents that occurred at Her Majesty's prison at Penninghame, which is located in my constituency. Penninghame is set in attractive countryside about four miles north of the market town of Newton Stewart. Its main building is the mansion house of the formerly private estate that now provides the prison with its grounds.
Penninghame was first established as an open prison in 1954, amid some controversy that necessitated the attendance of the Minister's distant predecessor at a public meeting in Newton Stewart to explain the arrangements. Since then, Penninghame has housed prisoners—many of them long term—in open conditions. Its capacity is for about 85 prisoners, but it is currently operating well below full capacity.
The prisoners fall within the Scottish Prison Service's category D, defined as prisoners who are considered not to be a danger to the public, who can be given the opportunity to serve their sentence in open conditions. Penninghame offers a rehabilitative regime to prisoners who are working towards their release. From the original controversy surrounding its opening, the prison has been well integrated into the local community.
A proportion of prisoners take advantage of outplacements in the community—some travel as far as Stranraer, which is about 25 miles from Newton Stewart. It is fair to say that new opportunities for work are constantly sought in activities such as forestry work or work in social projects, helping the elderly or infirm. The prison contains a large amount of woodland and farm, and includes a large garden with an associated garden centre, which is open to public and staff for the sale of local produce. That garden and garden centre constitute the main source of employment for prisoners and are an important point of contact between the prisoners and prison and the local community. Such contacts are highly valued within Newton Stewart and the surrounding area.
Much of the prisoners' work goes to help voluntary organisations that might not otherwise be able to carry out their role within their own slender funds, so the arrangements with the prison enable them to achieve more than they could otherwise do. Recently, a constituent of mine who is involved in running a day centre told me that the centre would certainly have shut down some time ago had he not had the daily assistance of four or five prisoners from Penninghame open prison.
A recent incident occurred at a local gala day near Penninghame, when some prisoners involved in the preparation for the gala day gained access to alcohol and subsequently—not surprisingly—had to be taken back to the prison. The consequences for the prisoners were extremely serious: they lost their open status, and were transferred back to a closed prison establishment.
The incident gained more media publicity than it deserved, because of some other events that had occurred at the prison, but one of the most remarkable aspects of

the case was how the gala day committee insisted that it was an isolated and exaggerated incident, and stated how much it valued and would continue to value the involvement of Penninghame prisoners in the gala day preparations.
I have made a point of visiting the prison since the general election. I was impressed by the work being done there and by the staff's commitment to the success of the various programmes. Over the years, the prison has clearly established a positive relationship with the local community, benefiting the community as well as substantially assisting the rehabilitation of inmates, which is the primary purpose of an open prison. I do not want anything to happen that might sour that excellent relationship, which is why I wish to address the aftermath of certain recent escape episodes, which have caused some local concern.
Despite the fact that security measures are in place, by definition it is easier for an inmate to abscond from an open prison than from a closed one. The prison authorities take great pains to ensure that category D prisoners chosen for open conditions are those who are likely to benefit from that classification; that they are unlikely to take advantage of open conditions to effect an escape; and that they are not likely to pose a danger to the public should they actually escape.
However, we have to recognise that assessment of the human personality and prediction of human behaviour is an inexact science, and occasionally the assessment of a prisoner's suitability for an open prison will prove incorrect. That does not invalidate the idea behind open prisons or necessarily imply that the SPS has been legally negligent when things go wrong; equally, however, it is not right that the public should suffer when the SPS assessment proves inaccurate, as is inevitable from time to time.
The first incident I wish to highlight took place earlier this year on 16 March, when Joseph McGarry—who was serving a 10-year sentence for various offences, including assault and robbery—absconded from the prison. Around the same time, a motor vehicle belonging to one of my constituents was stolen from Newton Stewart and was subsequently recovered from a location in Glasgow, near to where McGarry had previously resided. Its condition was such that it was a total write-off in insurance terms.
Although McGarry was subsequently charged under road traffic legislation with the offence of allowing himself to be carried in a motor vehicle without having lawful authority—a strange offence—the procurator fiscal decided not to proceed with the charge, and McGarry had two years added to his sentence for the escape attempt.
The amount my constituent received from the insurance company, while no doubt reflecting the car's market value, in no way allowed her to buy a replacement or reflected the value of the car to her. Possession of a motor car in rural Scotland—especially the south-west, which does not enjoy the best public transport services—is a necessity, and my constituent required a car to transport her mother to hospital in Edinburgh for treatment.
My constituent attempted to reclaim her uninsured losses from the SPS, but the service responded that there was no evidence that the escaped prisoner had stolen the car; and, even if there had been such evidence, there was none that the SPS had been negligent. My attempts to achieve some progress did not prove any more successful.
Subsequently, there has been what the intermediate report of the prisons inspectorate described as a
car theft and hostage taking incident
at the nearby hamlet of Challoch. On each occasion, a car belonging to one of my constituents has been damaged and written off by insurers. It is clear that Penninghame's relative remoteness results in motor vehicles being a prime target for potential escapees wishing to make good their escape.
After the second incident, my constituents again sought redress from the SPS, in particular compensation for uninsured financial losses, alleging that the SPS was negligent in allowing a prisoner to escape. The SPS responded:
As in many areas of human endeavour, a judgment has to be made on the evidence available, and from time to time the judgment that an individual can now be trusted to prepare for release in open conditions will not be borne out.
It concluded:
we consider this was an unfortunate incident which the prison authorities could not reasonably have foreseen and consequently your constituents' claim for compensation is repudiated".
I subsequently wrote to Mr. Frizzell, chief executive of SPS, saying:
It would appear that the general public has no redress once a faulty classification decision has been made and the prisoner transferred to a low security regime".
Mr. Frizzell replied to the effect that that was not true, and said:
any person who considers he has a legitimate claim may seek reparation from the Secretary of State—but for this claim to succeed he would first need to show negligence".
Given the cost of a legal case in the civil court and the difficulty of obtaining legal aid in civil cases, the suggestion that my constituents should sue the Secretary of State is a bit of a joke, and it does not appear to my constituents to be an especially inviting or realistic option, despite their confidence in the justice of their case.
Quite apart from the problems of financing legal proceedings, it is likely to be very difficult to prove negligence on the part of the SPS, which makes it almost impossible for those suffering the depredations of escaped prisoners to seek redress with confidence. Given that Penninghame is an open prison, and that prisoners are intended to leave the prison regularly in any event to go to work and other activities, an escape is hardly likely to have resulted from negligence.
The other main area where the prison authorities would be regarded by a layman as potentially at fault is that surely the authorities, almost by definition, have wrongly classified a prisoner as suitable for open conditions if that prisoner subsequently chooses to escape. It is clear that the system has, regrettably, failed in that instance, and that those making the prison classification obviously got it wrong if the prisoner escaped, albeit that is an after-the-fact judgment.
Trying to prove that such a failure constituted legal negligence is a different matter, so my constituents find that it is game, set and match to the SPS. The authorities' position, which allows them to say that prisoners can escape, threaten my constituents, damage property and steal and destroy cars but the injured parties are very unlikely to get any redress unless they can prove negligence, is a non-starter. It is not good enough.
The community of Newton Stewart has been very supportive to Penninghame prison throughout its existence, and I think it behoves the SPS to be supportive to individual members of the community on the rare occasions when things go wrong.
I ask the Minister to consider establishing a mechanism whereby constituents whose specific cases I have mentioned, and members of the wider public with similar cases, could get compensation for losses without the necessity for the SPS to be proved at fault—although, in cases where there really was negligence, the public interest would, I believe, demand that that be identified.
I started by emphasising the good work of the prison at Penninghame and the healthy relationship that it has enjoyed with the local community, to the advantage of both. No one wishes that relationship, built up over many years, to be placed at risk. However, the prisons inspectorate report I mentioned said:
the incident has generated much adverse media coverage and renewed agitation from a local pressure group … this is now casting a very large and disproportionate shadow over the establishment and its prisoners".
That is no exaggeration. The sheriff at the sheriff court in Stranraer, sentencing the escapee McGarry, said:
Locals are beginning to question why people like you should be in an open prison in the first place".
I would like the shadow I mentioned to be dispelled. I have had assurances from the governor of Penninghame, and from the Minister by letter, that public safety will be foremost in decisions taken by the SPS in relation to prisoner placement. However, beyond that, given the impossibility of giving absolute guarantees of prison behaviour, the position where innocent people can suffer losses—and cannot obtain recompense—simply because they happen to live close to an open prison threatens to deepen the shadow that the prisons inspectorate mentioned in its report. I hope that the Minister can suggest a way to resolve that dilemma.
My second concern is about the proportions of the various types of prisoner who are resident at Penninghame. As I understand it, until recently the policy of the SPS, although not rigid, was that prisoners who were sentenced to more than eight years were sent to Penninghame, that those who were qualified for open conditions, with sentences of from two to eight years, went to Noranside in Tayside, and that those with less than two years went to Castle Huntly, also in Tayside. That policy is under review, and a decision is expected imminently.
I appreciate that the issues concerning whether prisoners with dissimilar sentences should be mixed in the same establishment are complex, but I suggest that, from the point of view of the local community, it would be much more acceptable if prisoners at Penninghame constituted a cross-section of those in open conditions, not those with largely longer-term sentences. I hope that the Minister will say that the SPS is planning to move in that direction.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office(Mr. Henry McLeish): I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) has taken such a constructive tone in relation to the contribution that Penninghame prison


makes to the local community. He has also been very robust in the defence of his constituents over recent circumstances.
I want to respond in equally constructive terms in relation to the points that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman spoke with passion and insisted that the matter be taken seriously. His correspondence with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service and myself shows the same qualities.
I understand the anxiety, distress and anger that the hon. Gentleman's constituents must feel in the light of this year's events. One need only pause for a moment to put oneself in their place. It was in acknowledgment of the concerns expressed by the local community that the Scottish Prison Service imposed a moratorium on the transfer to Penninghame of prisoners with any history of violence.
Not unnaturally, last March's incident attracted significant media interest. Against that background, considerable support was expressed by local people for the work done by Penninghame prisoners in the community. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that.
I know that prison managers are keen to build on that support and to develop the good links that exist. As part of that process, I shall now ask the Scottish Prison Service to examine again the allocation criteria for Penninghame, to ensure that those prisoners who go there are those—and only those—who can use the opportunities that it affords constructively. I hope that that addresses part of the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed. The SPS attaches a high priority to good relations and co-operation with the local community. It is important that decisions taken about the allocation of prisoners do not put that in jeopardy.
I emphasise that people living in the constituency must have confidence in the prison; that is vital. As has been said, historically the establishment has maintained a good relationship with the local community, and I give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that we do not want to do anything in future that jeopardises that concern. I would not wish to lose sight of the important role that open prisons play in aiding the successful integration of prisoners into society at the end of their sentence.
The Scottish Prison Service makes strenuous efforts to ensure that no prisoner who is thought to be a danger to the public goes to Penninghame. Prisoners are transferred only when they have been allocated security category D, defined as
a prisoner who is considered not to be a danger to the public and who can be given the opportunity to serve his sentence in open conditions".
Before transfer to Penninghame, assessments are made of the risk to the general public if the prisoner were to abscond and the likelihood of his absconding.
Allocation of security category D to indeterminate sentence prisoners requires the Secretary of State's approval. Very careful consideration is given to each application for transfer and the following factors, among others, are taken into account. We must consider response and conduct since imprisonment, and willingness to address offending behaviour. We must consider preparation for release. We must anticipate the likely response of victims or the general public. We must assess

the stability of the social and domestic relationships. Finally, the person must be drug-free. That process is given a great deal of attention, to try to avoid any of the difficulties and problems that the hon. Gentleman outlined today.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it may have been a mistake to assign category D to the prisoner who absconded on 24 March. He has suggested that subsequent events proved that that was a misjudgment. However, he will accept, I am sure, that a judgment can be made only on the evidence available at the time. Category D is awarded after a rigorous assessment procedure, which tests the prisoner on escorted leaves as well as in conditions of greater freedom within the prison.
Occasionally, no matter how good that process, a prisoner will go on to abuse the trust placed in him. That is not a fact about prisoners' behaviour specifically; it is a fact of human nature. Sometimes people let one down. In the more philosophical part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman confirmed that.
The prisoner in question had created no trouble for anyone in the five years preceding the incidents of 24 March. The staff who had been responsible for his management while he was in Edinburgh prison, and who had observed his behaviour closely throughout that period, advocated his reclassification. His cause was championed by the independent Scottish prisons complaints commissioner, who thought that he was not being reclassified quickly enough.
There was no logic to the events of 24 March; they rapidly escalated out of control. It was if the prisoner had embarked on a roller-coaster ride that he could not get off. Such events are very unusual. In its 43-year history, Penninghame has had only one incident of this seriousness. Of course, that is no consolation to those who were affected that day. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to help them—any Minister who is a constituency Member of Parliament would want to do so. I share that desire, because it is clear that a wrong was committed.
I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. As he knows, a full investigation was carried out after the incident. The prisoner involved has yet to come to trial. I cannot say whether the trial will shed any light on the incident. However, on the strength of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I shall ask the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, after the trial, to look further into all the issues raised this afternoon.
We never live in a perfect society, but I should like to think that the confidence and trust of the constituents in the prison can always be reinforced by the common sense exercised on both sides of the House. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made an excellent, concise presentation of the concerns that exist. It is important for Ministers to listen and do as much as they can to ensure the continuation of that confidence and trust. I hope that the assurance that I have given will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o 'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Integrated Schools

Mr. Hope: How many integrated schools in Northern Ireland (a) at present exist, (b) existed in 1992 and (c) are at the planning stage. [16231]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): At present, there are 33 grant-aided and four independent integrated schools in Northern Ireland. In addition, four schools have been granted conditional approval for transformation to integrated status from September 1998, and proposals from a further six schools are under active consideration. In September 1992, there were 16 grant-aided schools.

Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, although integrated schooling is not a solution to the deep divisions in Northern Ireland society, it plays a crucial role in heightening understanding and tolerance of different cultures and religions? Will he say whether the Northern Ireland Office is taking any steps to encourage existing schools to transform themselves into integrated schools?

Mr. Worthington: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. We are encouraging existing schools to transform themselves into integrated schools, and an unprecedented number—five schools— have done so this year. Creating new schools causes real capital expenditure problems. Some £28 million will be spent on integrated schools in the next three years, which is a large proportion of the expenditure on major school works. We want to encourage schools to submit genuine, active proposals for transformation. That is a major step forward.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that there is a considerable and significant level of voluntary integration in addition to existing designated integrated schools? Does he agree also that the education for mutual understanding programme is improving links between state-controlled schools and Roman Catholic maintained schools and is helping to improve respect for different traditions? Will the Minister monitor closely all applications for new integrated schools that might threaten the viability of existing secondary schools in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Worthington: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about voluntary integration, school transformation proposals must involve a significant amount of integration. The general point is that most schools in Northern Ireland have become extremely segregated, and therefore find it difficult to move quickly to integration. We accept happily that it is our duty under statute to stimulate school integration, but we must achieve a balance between that duty and being fair to the other schools and other children in the system.

Northern Ireland Forum

Mr. Mackinlay: What responses her Department has given to reports published by the Northern Ireland Forum. [16232]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The forum has produced 17 reports since its inception, of which 13 have been submitted to the Government.
One report, on electoral abuse, has not yet been formally received. Two reports, on long-term unemployment and on integrated transport policy, are under consideration. All the other reports submitted have been carefully considered, and Ministers have responded in writing or met a delegation from the forum.

Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When he receives the report of Standing Committee A of the Northern Ireland Forum on electoral abuse, will he examine it closely, bearing in mind the fact that its findings and recommendations demonstrate the urgent need for electoral reform, both in the preparation of the register and lists and in the use of the register in relation to proxy voting and postal voting? Hon. Members of all parties are concerned about the integrity of electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland, and their concerns are buttressed by an important BBC "Spotlight" programme a few months ago, prepared by Stephen Walker. All that requires the Department to recognise the need for a root-and-branch look at the electoral arrangements.

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We take allegations of electoral abuse extremely seriously. All parties in Northern Ireland have been asked to make submissions to the Government, and we have our own internal review of the matter in the Northern Ireland Office. In addition, my hon. Friend will know that the House's Northern Ireland Select Committee is examining that important problem. We take it extremely seriously, and we look forward to receiving both reports in the new year.

Mr. Forsythe: Is the Minister not concerned that, when the matter was investigated by Standing Committee A of the forum, the committee produced more than 20 recommendations or suggestions for improving the electoral system in Northern Ireland? Surely we must be concerned that, after all these years, there are so many problems with the electoral system in Northern Ireland, and nothing appears to have been done about them. The matter must be looked at closely, and something must be done as soon as possible.

Mr. Murphy: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He must bear with us, as we have been in office only since May, but all parties share his view that there are extremely serious problems. Every party in Northern Ireland, without exception, has written to me about the difficulties that they have encountered in respect of electoral abuse. I look forward to meeting the chairman of the standing committee of the forum and other members on the matter which, as I said in my previous reply, is extremely serious.

Peace Process

Mr. Colman: What plans she has to meet the Irish President to discuss the peace process. [16233]

Mrs. Ellman: What plans she has to meet the Irish President to discuss the peace process. [16234]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I hope to meet President McAleese when she visits Northern Ireland in the future. President McAleese has taken "Building Bridges" as the theme for her presidency. I warmly welcome this, and I look forward to hearing the President's views on a variety of topics in the near future.

Mr. Colman: I note that my right hon. Friend joins me in congratulating President McAleese on her election. Does she agree that the excellent work in all parts of the community carried out by Mary Robinson, the former President, has provided a positive foundation on which President McAleese can build?

Marjorie Mowlam: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The legacy that Mary Robinson left is a positive one. Now she has left to continue the work on human rights elsewhere, but I am sure that she has left a good base which President McAleese will study carefully, because it consists of listening to and encouraging people towards an accommodation, just as, in parallel, we in the north will continue to build bridges and work for progress and accommodation in the talks.

Mrs. Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the President the work of the Great Famine Commemoration Committee in my constituency? The work of that committee involves recognising the tragedy of the lives lost in the great famine, but the committee also thanks those who gave support to the people who arrived on the shores of Liverpool and elsewhere, and commemorates the achievements of Irish people in Britain.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The famine and its after-effects are part of our history, as they are part of Ireland's. The famine's consequences, which my hon. Friend described for her constituency in Liverpool, continue to affect the lives of many people in Britain and Ireland. As I am sure she is aware, in a statement in May my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed his regret for the famine, and paid tribute to those who have settled in this country, many in Liverpool. A memorial proposed for Liverpool will focus on the famine, commemorating the victims who passed through Merseyside and the help that many people in Liverpool gave.

Mr. Trimble: As the Secretary of State knows, the talks process in respect of the Irish Republic involves important constitutional issues, and, indeed, issues of international law. Does she realise our surprise when we were told recently by officials in the Northern Ireland Office that there exist understandings with the Irish Republic of a constitutional nature beyond those disclosed in public documents? Does she realise our shock when we were told later, in response to a question from me,

that the Northern Ireland Office has never bothered formally to consult the Government's experts in international law in the Foreign Office? Will it now seek advice on these important matters of constitutional and international law and will it publish that advice?

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not know the specific reference that the hon. Gentleman is making to a Northern Ireland civil servant, and the information that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I assure him that we will certainly take advice from international lawyers and that we take advice at the moment from our own lawyers, and those in the Home Office where relevant. I guarantee that—as we have done elsewhere in Northern Ireland— where it is relevant, viable and possible, we will put the information in the public domain.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest contribution that any of us can make to building bridges is to get a political settlement that can be supported by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland? What deliberations has she had with the Irish Government and the parties within the talks to ensure that the review plenary sessions on Monday and Tuesday next week will be so positive that, in effect, we can focus on clearly defined objectives to reach a settlement?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mat question. I agree whole-heartedly with the first part of his statement: a political settlement reached by accommodation, based on consent, is the only way in which we will have a different future from the violent history that we have had.
In terms of where we go from here, as hon. Members from the parties in Northern Ireland will know, discussions are taking place now, in bilateral and other formats, to begin to try to move the process forward, so that we have specific recommendations to make at the review plenary on 1 to 3 December. We are working very hard to progress that; I am sure that others are as well. On Monday, we will discuss what form it will take. I hope that it gives us something concrete with which to move to Christmas.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Secretary of State speaks with the President of the Irish Republic, will she raise the matter of the President's announcement that she would make frequent visits to Northern Ireland? Will those visits be controlled under the proper protocol arrangements, or will the President be at liberty just to come and go as she pleases?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I presume that it will be normal protocol, just because of the advice that will be needed for somebody in the President's position moving around. When we hold the EU presidency in the next six months, I hope that we can, with the minimum of protocol, invite people from across Europe to see the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland in terms of the talks, the economy, investment and economic and social stability, so that people in Northern Ireland realise that, although they want peace in the months and years ahead, many people in Europe and elsewhere wish it too.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that a central requirement of the settlement that


the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned is a cross-border body with executive powers, and that the overwhelming majority of the pro-Union community reject that as any basis for settlement?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. Different parties have different parts that they consider to be essential to some sort of final accommodation—these include devolution in terms of an assembly, cross-border co-operation and the nature of the powers of that body. Surely, the point of negotiation and discussion is to consider the basic tenets that each party brings with it, whether it be cross-border co-operation, a devolved assembly or a change in east-west relations. That is what discussion, debate and negotiation should be about. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds it within himself to join those talks in the future, because his contribution would be welcome.

Mr. Öpik: How would the Minister view visits by various representatives from Northern Irish parties to Dublin in the interests of reciprocating the important and urgent need to build bridges in the negotiations?

Marjorie Mowlam: I would welcome participation, debate and discussion among all the different players and parties. I should like them to be fully engaged in the process. I hope to see others who are currently outside the talks or are not fully part of them come into the talks and play a fuller role, because that would help the process considerably.

Mr. MacKay: Are we not at a decidedly premature stage of the political talks for the Prime Minister to be inviting Mr. Adams to Downing street? Does the Secretary of State not appreciate the public outrage when, only last week, a Sinn Fein council said that, if it did not get its own way, it would go back to what it knows it does best? Let me assure the right hon. Lady that, if we were still in office, we would not be inviting Mr. Adams to Downing street.

Marjorie Mowlam: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if he were still in office, he would not be inviting Mr. Adams in the same way as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—openly, above board and straightforwardly. When the Conservative Government did it in the past, they did it behind closed doors and without acknowledging it. At least we are doing it in a straightforward and open way. The Prime Minister has made it patently clear that, if groups and parties sign up to the ceasefire and accept the Mitchell principles of a democratic and constitutional way forward, we will treat them as normal. The Prime Minister is in a cycle of talks with all the parties and he will treat them all the same. Let us do it openly, not in a hidden way.

European Funding

Mr. Salter: If she will make a statement on the amount of European funding that has been secured for Northern Ireland over the last five years. [16235]

Mr. Paul Murphy: European structural funds support secured during the past five years comes to 1,632 million

ecu, which is about £1,200 million. All the programmes negotiated with the European Commission have been funded for the period 1994 to 1999, with the exception of the special support programme for peace and reconciliation, which, so far, has had funding approved for 1995 to 1997. That reflects Northern Ireland's objective 1 status. The structural funds allocation has made a significant contribution to addressing the region's needs and circumstances.

Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the work of the district partnerships set up to distribute European peace and reconciliation money? Does my hon. Friend agree that that important work has been further enhanced by the bold decision of the House's Standing Committee A in the early hours of the morning to end, once and for all, the appalling practice of internment without trial?

Mr. Murphy: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, in all directions. Recently, I visited two partnerships, in Ards and in Newry. I have been impressed by the work done by those bodies. All parties and those outside political parties such as trade unions, business and commerce, engage with each other in the interests of everybody in the community. They are very encouraging in terms of what they want to do to improve the situation in Northern Ireland with funding and in helping the peace process. It is a complete innovation in the way that funds are distributed and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The European Union's financial support is very much welcomed by the people in Northern Ireland and we thank the Government for the effort that they are making to attract more European Union funding to the Province. However, I want to get the figures into context and avoid any misunderstanding. The Minister referred to £260 million a year that comes from the European Union. What is the comparable figure coming from Her Majesty's Government to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman has experience of European matters as a former Member of the European Parliament. Structural funds and other money that we receive from the European Union are important for peace and reconciliation. He is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the £8 billion that comes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who know how important it is for Northern Ireland to be properly funded. The right hon. Gentleman's point is important, because health, education, transport and security are funded by the British taxpayer.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I share his admiration for the grants that are channelled into Northern Ireland: I fully support that. However, will he have regard to the fact that some of those grants could have a devastating effect on other parts of the United Kingdom? The recent announcement of a grant to develop glass manufacture in Northern Ireland could affect the industries in my area, particularly in Knottingley where my constituents work.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I assure him that full account was taken of the points that


he made about the glass industry in his area. I also thank him for referring to the fact that Northern Ireland is a special case. Peace and reconciliation money does not have an impact on the way in which funds are allocated in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Rev. Martin Smyth: If she will make a statement on the pattern of hospital waiting in Northern Ireland, indicating the three trusts and specialties where the lists are greatest. [16236]

Mr. Worthington: The largest in-patient waiting lists at 30 September 1997 were at the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals health and social services trust, the Belfast City Hospital health and social services trust and the Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals health and social services trust. By specialty, the largest waiting lists were in general surgery, ear, nose and throat and trauma and orthopaedics.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate that answer. Does the Minister accept that the Ards and Ulster hospitals have not been properly funded over the years? Can he give an assurance that the boards will complete contracts much earlier, so that those dealing with specialties can plan their operational procedures better?

Mr. Worthington: The Minister—I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I mean, the minister of religion has given an example of the collapse of the internal market. When we came to office, it seemed impossible for the trusts and boards to come to an agreement. We insisted that they did so as soon as possible. The major cause of the problem this year has been the budget cuts imposed by the previous Government, which have caused waiting lists to soar after a period of decline. We take this matter extremely seriously. We have identified an extra £12 million for this year's budget. I hope to be able to identify more money shortly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an extra £31 million would go into the health service budget from April next year.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his recent. well-received visit to the Downe hospital in Downpatrick. When he was there, he no doubt saw that an attack is being made on the waiting list by a high-quality, cost-effective team in conditions that are 200 years old. That trust has gone through the private finance initiative. Will he put completion of the third phase of a modest hospital on the public capital programme list?

Mr. Worthington: I very much appreciated my visit to Downe hospital as part of the consultations that I have had in that area recently. We were disturbed and disappointed by the collapse of the private finance initiative. I am awaiting the economic analysis and appraisal, so that I can decide on the priority to be given to the Downe hospital.

Mr. Moss: Following the Minister's recent decision to amalgamate the Royal maternity and the Jubilee maternity at the Royal site, will he confirm that sick babies will continue to be transported by ambulance to the Royal hospital for sick children? Will he confirm that the

construction of the proposed Royal maternity unit will be put off for many years? Does he agree that the closure of the Jubilee unit at the City hospital, without consultation, is without precedent?

Mr. Worthington: To deal with the last point first, this morning I received a letter from the affected parties in the case, giving me their undertaking that they would work together to make a success of the new proposals. We inherited a problem from the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Northern Ireland Minister. The most important issue was the clinically best way to deal with small, vulnerable babies and their mothers. We looked at the matter and we brought in independent outside analysts. The clear decision we received was that we should go ahead with our proposals, which we have done. That has been generally welcomed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Godman: In addition to the Minister's existing proposals, when will he introduce a comprehensive health promotion strategy?

Mr. Worthington: On 10 December, we shall make an announcement on priorities in the health service in Northern Ireland so that we can remedy defects in the illness patterns not only through the health service, but by involving every Department and agency in Northern Ireland. We shall announce our proposals then.

Health Budget

Mr. Simon Hughes: If she will make a statement on the projected growth in real terms in the health budget for Northern Ireland between 1997–98 and 1998–99. [16237]

Mr. Worthington: It is not possible to anticipate the 1998–99 final allocations announcement which will be made to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in early December, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the extra £31 million, announced in the July Budget, will be added to the health spending totals for 1998–99 set by the previous Government.

Mr. Hughes: Given that, during the whole of the last Parliament, the House was told by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the money needed for the health service in Northern Ireland—for capital building and general services and to reduce waiting lists—and given that health inflation is about 2 per cent. above real inflation, will the Minister either give an undertaking today or use his best endeavours to ensure that the money going to the health service in Northern Ireland is at least 2 per cent. in real terms above inflation and that additional money is put in to cut waiting lists, rather than allowing them to go on rising?

Mr. Worthington: I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are committed to a comprehensive spending review so that we can impose the Labour Government's priorities. We have already started that in terms of the reallocation of money in the current year, and we hope to make a further announcement shortly. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient until the Northern Ireland Grand Committee sitting, when all will be revealed to him.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that the sums available to him will be sufficient to complete,


equip and open the new Causeway hospital at Coleraine, and will it be equipped to provide cancer services and paediatrics?

Mr. Worthington: I regret that I could not hear all that the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that one of the first actions we took was to end the indecision about the Causeway hospital. I was delighted to meet the chair of the trust this morning and to hear that the project is going ahead well. I look forward to discussing health matters with him in the not-too-distant future.

Equal Opportunities

Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on her Department's policies for creating equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [16238]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government are whole-heartedly committed to equality of opportunity in all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We are actively considering a number of measures on fair employment, sex discrimination, race relations and disability discrimination that will benefit all who live there. In addition, the Government are giving full consideration to the comprehensive report, produced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, on employment equality and related matters. We intend to publish a response early in the new year.

Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the importance of ensuring equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, particularly in employment, in which the Catholic population is at a severe disadvantage, will he tell the House what further steps he intends to take to increase employment opportunities for all in the Province?

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Good progress is being made in considering the SACHR recommendations. Many of the new Government's proposals on tackling unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment under the new deal initiative, echo the SACHR proposals. The new deal will help members of both communities. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that Catholics are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed, so they should benefit in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Social Security Fraud

Mr. Beggs: What additional action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to reduce social security and housing benefit fraud.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We are committed to taking tough action on social security and housing benefit fraud. We are endeavouring to make the social security system more secure, to modernise it and, of course, to punish those who abuse it.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating those vigilant officials

throughout the United Kingdom who uncovered £68 million of housing benefit fraud last year? Will he condemn the inefficiency of those officials who do not act promptly when information is provided, as outlined by Brian Sewell in the Evening Standard earlier this month? Will he encourage the public to blow the whistle on benefit cheats so that those most in need can have better benefits in future?

The Prime Minister: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I congratulate those local authority investigators who are doing their job well, but more can and should be done. That is one reason for setting up the benefit fraud inspectorate, which will raise and maintain standards in counter-fraud activity. We are implementing two further measures from next month, which will make a beneficial difference. First, we are introducing powers to ensure that only people with national insurance numbers can get benefits. That will be of some help in cutting down on fraud. Secondly, we are demonstrating our commitment to crack down, particularly on housing benefit fraud, by giving local authorities valuable new powers, which will allow them to prevent unscrupulous landlords and tenants from reaching an agreement to fiddle the system together. That is happening on too great a basis at the moment. We want to crack down on it as soon as we can.

Engagements

Mr. Gapes: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 November.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I attended a meeting of the national executive committee of the Labour party. I also visited Ted and Joyce Hawkes, an elderly pensioner couple who have benefited greatly from the measures announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I shall have further meetings later today.

Mr. Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing better demonstrates the difference between our Government and the Conservatives than the fact that, last winter, the Conservatives put VAT on fuel for millions of pensioners, whereas yesterday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a cut and millions of pounds extra for pensioners this winter? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assure the House that speedy action will be taken to ensure that millions of pensioners benefit from that as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly will. I should point out that the measures announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend mean that all pensioners will get £20 help with their fuel bill, and there will be £50 help for the 1.7 million pensioners on income support. Taking into account the cut in VAT on fuel, the abolition of the gas levy and the reduction in VAT on energy efficiency materials, pensioners will have £100 a year extra help. That is the difference between a Labour Government who keep their promises and a Tory Government who broke them.

Mr. Hague: May I ask the Prime Minister a question which need not be a matter of party controversy, but which the Chancellor declined to answer yesterday?


I welcome the provision made to help disabled people into work, even though it seems foolish to pay for it through a one-off tax. Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that his pre-election promise not to raise taxes covers disabled people on benefit?

The Prime Minister: As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already said, we shall conduct a comprehensive spending review properly, but we shall do so on a basis that keeps our election pledges.

Mr. Hague: This is an important point. Many disabled people who are watching our exchanges will be anxious to know the answers. It has been reported in newspapers that the Government are considering taxing disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Will the Prime Minister rule out taxing those benefits for disabled people?

The Prime Minister: I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman that we made all our pledges at the election. We shall keep to those pledges. If there are any changes to disability benefit or anything else, they will be announced here.

Mr. Hague: Those are pretty weasel words. Any changes will be announced here—but no assurances about what those changes would be.
I ask the Prime Minister for another assurance. Can he at least give an assurance that disability living allowance will continue to be paid directly to disabled people and will not be paid to town halls to distribute or spend on their behalf?

The Prime Minister: I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman that the comprehensive spending review will continue as it should. It is an absurd game to get into ruling this in, ruling this out. He should not go on the basis of newspaper reports. Any changes will be announced in the proper way.

Mr. Hague: With this Government's willingness to speak to Parliament, one has to go on the basis of newspaper reports. Can the Prime Minister be serious that such a proposal is under consideration? Does he believe that Islington council knows better how to spend the money of disabled people than they know themselves? It should not need a review to answer that one.
Since the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on reviews, will he look again—if he would listen to the question instead of to the Chancellor—at the Lord Chancellor's plans for legal aid, which could prevent people who are seriously disabled in accidents from pursuing personal injury claims? Is not removing their entitlement the wrong way to reform legal aid?

The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about what he says are the effects of the Lord Chancellor's plans. Secondly, it was the Conservative Government who cut benefit for millions of disabled people. I remember that when we, as an Opposition, proposed better rights for disabled people, his Government opposed them. We shall take no lessons in helping the disabled or the unemployed from him and his Conservative party.

Mr. Hague: I am asking the Prime Minister for an answer, not a lesson. Our Government increased spending

on disability benefits by 300 per cent. Our Government took the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 through the House. If the Prime Minister built on that legacy, he would have the Opposition's support. Disabled people will have found his answers today disappointing as well as unconvincing. He has done nothing to allay the fears that his Ministers have stirred up. Will he at least give an assurance that he will provide clear answers to those questions and put the minds of disabled people at rest— and do so before the European Day of Disabled People next week?

The Prime Minister: I have never heard anything quite so pathetic as the right hon. Gentleman trying to raise a load of scares and nonsense. We had a pre-Budget statement yesterday, but he has not even asked a single question on it, and that is because he knows that it was good for business, it was good for the unemployed, it was good for pensioners, it was good for child care and it was good for the country. The Tories have already lost a reputation as being the party of law and order, they have lost a reputation for being the party of business and they have lost a reputation for being the party of prudent finance. In short, they are a lost cause.

Mr. Hume: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is essential, and in the public interest, to establish the full truth of what happened on the streets of Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972, especially in the light of the evidence now supplied to him by the Irish Government? What steps is he prepared to take to establish that truth?

The Prime Minister: The Government certainly recognise the pain and distress caused by the events on 30 January 1972, and also recognise that they are still there after 25 years or more. Extensive and detailed material has been submitted by the relatives and the Irish Government. We shall consider it fully, and it is being examined by officials now. No options have been ruled out, but all the material must be fully examined. When it has been, and the conclusions reached, we shall announce them.

Mr. Leigh: If the Prime Minister cannot spend as much as he would like—and I understand why— on disabled people in Lincolnshire, may I suggest another way in which he might help the people of Lincolnshire? He could give them a Christmas present and support a campaign that is supported by everybody in Lincolnshire, including the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), and all political parties. It would do much for business and tourism in the area. It is the campaign, which is being waged across the county, to upgrade and dual the A46 between Newark and Lincoln. It would cost only a flea bite. The Prime Minister has only to say yes and I promise him rave reviews in the Lincolnshire Echo tomorrow.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants on that road scheme. [Interruption.] Tory Members ask, "Why not?" but they were in power for 18 years and did not do it themselves. However, that is not to prejudge the issue one way or another, because it has to be considered by the relevant Ministers. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not do much for the people of Lincolnshire yesterday. Actually, we did an enormous


amount. We put extra money into schools and hospitals— more than his Government wanted to give them. We have had the windfall tax, which will give young people there the chance of jobs and skills. We have got a deal for pensioners and pensioner households of £100 a year or more and we cut value added tax on fuel. I think that we have done rather well by the people of Lincolnshire.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome the Chancellor's statement yesterday on child care proposals, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the obstacle for people who want to work is often the lack of provision of child care? Will he try to expedite the implementation of the proposals as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: We shall try, in the light of the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to make progress on that as quickly as possible. The effect of the £300 million programme will be to raise the number of out-of-school child care clubs from some 3,500 at the moment to 30,000. That is an ambitious target, but we believe that we can reach it. By helping parents with the way in which the child care clubs are set up, we shall give a lot of support and help to parents, especially lone parents who desperately need it. That is an excellent example of how Government can help people back to work and ensure that people carry out better their responsibilities to their own children.

Mr. Ashdown: May I return to a question that I fear the Prime Minister failed to answer last week—which comes first, cutting class sizes and waiting lists or cutting taxes to achieve the 10p tax rate?

The Prime Minister:: We actually wish to do both. The decisions that are made on tax are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for the Chancellor. We had two specific pledges on which we fought the last election. One was getting class sizes down for five, six and seven-year-olds and the other was on the waiting lists.

Mr. Moss: They are going up.

The Prime Minister: Yes, because of the situation that we inherited. We shall ensure that we put both pledges in place by the time of the next election and then the country will see the difference between a Government who keep their promises and a Government who break them.

Mr. Ashdown: I am surprised that the Prime Minister cannot tell us which comes first, an early pledge or a long-term aim. It is a simple question. Let me put it in this way to him. He has told us that there are hard choices to make, and this may not be his Government's fault. Nevertheless, it is a fact that he is now presiding over the longest waiting lists on record in the NHS, and class sizes that are predicted to be the largest for 20 years. Surely now he can tell us that an early pledge to cut waiting lists and class sizes comes before a long-term aim to cut income tax.

The Prime Minister: I am glad, first, that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is not the fault of the present Government. That is an important point to make. However, we are actually putting in additional resources

both to schools and to hospitals, in real terms, over and above the resources that the previous Government put in. That will allow us, in time, to meet both those pledges.
We want to try to reduce tax rates at the bottom end of the income scale precisely because that will help people back into work. It is part of a package. We can do both, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that that can be done—we can get a better starting rate of tax for people as well as getting class sizes and waiting lists down—only if we run the economy in an effective and efficient way. That means keeping a tight grip on public finances and not giving in to every demand that is made. I am afraid that that is the difference between government and opposition.

Maria Eagle: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see a recent MORI poll—showing support for the Government at 51 per cent. and support for the Opposition at 35 per cent.—which was undertaken in Richmond, Yorkshire? Does he attribute that result to the policies of the Government or to those of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can claim credit for that; all the credit belongs to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Mr. Chope: Will the Prime Minister rule out time-limiting incapacity benefit to 13 weeks? If not, is he not being cruel and cynical in refusing to lift the threat hanging over disabled people?

The Prime Minister: What is cruel and cynical is nonsense such as that from someone who was a member of a Government who cut incapacity benefit for millions of people. We have said that there will be a comprehensive spending review, and it would be foolish to answer that question until the review is completed. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything into that, and neither should disabled people.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: In view of the Prime Minister's commitment to maintaining pre-election promises, how does he justify the extra £3 billion made available to schools and the extra £1.5 billion made available to the national health service in the first six months of his Government, when that money was not even mentioned in our pre-election promises? Does he accept that the term "value added" could well be applied to his Government?

Hon. Members: Oh!

The Prime Minister: No matter what the Tories say, I think that that is a very good point. It shows that I may have understated the matter before. We are not only keeping our promises; we are doing better than our promises.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Prime Minister share my view that the preferred location of the Welsh Assembly should be Cardiff, and that the city hall there is a very fine building indeed? What can he do to impress upon the Labour leaders of Cardiff city council the damage that they will do to the prestige and economy


of our capital city if they are not reasonable in their terms for that building? Might the assembly have to look for a new home?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that Cardiff city hall is a fine building, but the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will publish a consultation document setting out the range of options—in Cardiff and elsewhere—for the location of the assembly. That will be done before the Bill setting up the assembly receives a Second Reading.

Mr. Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers are the most valuable resource in education? May I report from schools in my constituency that teachers greatly welcome the £2.3 billion extra money allocated to schools, and also the ideas in the education White Paper? However, as they were disparaged, undermined and blamed for most of the ills of society for so many years by the previous Government, teachers' morale is low. [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister join me in praising teachers, the overwhelming majority of whom work tirelessly for their pupils, and will he place special emphasis on raising teacher morale?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with that, and my hon. Friend should not be put off by the shouts and calls from the Opposition. It is important that we have high teacher morale and I willingly congratulate the vast majority of teachers who do an excellent job in schools up and down the country, often giving of their own time voluntarily to help their pupils. The most important thing that can be done to improve teacher morale is to give the Government's commitment to investment in our schools. That is why over an additional £1 billion is going in next year and why we have a £1.3 billion school repairs programme, which is funded out of the windfall levy, for the lifetime of this Parliament, which will allow thousands of schools to be refurbished and to upgrade their facilities.

Miss Widdecombe: Does the Prime Minister feel the slightest tinge of embarrassment that the latest donation of £1 million to the Labour party comes from a company that is paying its workers £2.98 per hour? Can he at least assure us that the £1 million will not buy an exemption from the minimum wage? Finally, will he tell the House, which is dying to know since he said that it would be done quickly, when he eventually repaid Bernie Ecclestone?

The Prime Minister: The only reason why anyone knows who donates to the Labour party is that we disclose it. In June, the right hon. Lady's party leader said he would disclose the name of donors, but he has never done it. In June, he said that he would publish the Tory party accounts—he has never done it. That is the party that has now said that it will refuse to disclose the past five years' worth of donations. We shall take no lessons from a party that has never ever disclosed a single thing about the dubious money that it gets.

Dr. George Turner: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what response he got from the Leader of the Opposition when he called for all parties

to reveal their sources of finance for the past five years? Does he agree that the Neill committee will, at worst, be crippled in its investigation of party finance unless it has full information and disclosure? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider making sure that the House has the opportunity to ensure that all parties are made to disclose their sources of finance and to open their books? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I hear a Tory Member shouting out how boring this subject is. It is remarkable how quickly the Tories have lost interest in it. In answer to my hon. Friend, they smuggled out last Friday—the day of the Winchester and Beckenham results, let me remind them—the news that they were refusing to give the details of previous negotiations. Of course it is difficult for Sir Patrick Neill to decide how the present system is working unless he knows how it worked under the previous Government. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are willing to make disclosures, why are not the Tories?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Government will note that there will be a service in Westminster abbey tomorrow to commemorate the arrival 25 years ago in this country of Ugandan Asians who were expelled by Idi Amin. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying that we shall work together for the time when the colour of someone's skin is no more important than the colour of someone's eyes or hair?
Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the fact that, when the most senior black elected official in this country—Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union—came up for re-election, he gave his personal backing to the person who was challenging him?

The Prime Minister: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is factually wrong. It is unfortunate, in a question that should have tried to bring people together, that he should have made a silly and wrong point.
On the more serious point about Ugandan Asians, we and, I am sure, hon. Members of all parties, are delighted to pay tribute to the work that they do in our community. They are deeply respected people. The aim of a multicultural, multiracial society is one that all Government Members, at least, fully endorse.

Mr. Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a considerable part of the appalling rise in crime that this country faced under the previous Government can be put down to the anti-social behaviour of persistent young offenders? I urge him to take further action to target those offenders by making them face up to the consequences of their crimes, by putting right the damage that they do to their victims and their communities.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Home Secretary will publish his paper on youth justice tomorrow; it will be widely welcomed in the country, as it will ensure that we get a youth justice system that actually works. Many people, especially the elderly, have their lives made absolute hell by gangs of youngsters who are out of control and are not being dealt with properly by the system.
Our proposals will deal with that, but it is important to say that one of the critical differences between us and the previous Government is that we are trying to tackle the underlying causes of crime as well. That is why I put our measures to tackle the problems of the youth justice system side by side with the new deal for the young unemployed, which gives them the chance to lead a more responsible life and shows that we shall build a different, one-nation society, based on values of opportunity and responsibility going together.

Mr. Malins: Can the Prime Minister clear up something that is confusing me? How is it that, whenever something is going wrong, such as lengthening hospital waiting lists or increased class sizes, he thinks that it is the previous Government's fault, whereas whenever something is going well, such as the state of the economy and unemployment, he takes the credit? Where is the logic in that?

The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will spend most of his time confused, but I shall try to elucidate the matter for him. I heard the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservatives saying yesterday that we should give them the credit for all the good things that we have been able to do, but they are opposed to the windfall tax, which has provided the new deal for the young unemployed and has happened because there is a Labour Government.
The cut in value added tax on fuel is being implemented by the Labour Government in the teeth of Conservative opposition. The £300 million child care package is available only because we put lottery money into it—a move that the Conservatives opposed. They had 18 years to do what we did yesterday on pensions, and we did it. The new Labour Government are delivering. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is no longer confused.

Mr. Bill Michie: Most hon. Members welcome the Chancellor's announcement of £300 million of extra funding for out-of-school clubs, which will be beneficial to nearly 1 million children. We know from experience and from what we have seen in the press that many children are vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that part of the funding will be used to ensure that proper checks and supervision are carried out

by professional people, especially in local government, to ensure that the staff working in those clubs do not cause any problems?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. It is obviously important, in such a big and ambitious programme, to make proper provision to ensure that the staff are suitable. The Department for Education and Employment will work closely with the Home Office to do that. As part of the new deal for the young unemployed, 50,000 places will be allocated specifically to train people and give them skills in the job of caring for young children. It is precisely by combining high qualifications and rigid tests of suitability with the places available that we have the best chance of both meeting our target and avoiding any possible abuse.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said—

The Prime Minister: Where is the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Winterton: I am over here. The hon. Member for Garston has said that a poll carried out in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has shown considerable majority support for the Prime Minister's policies. Is that not because the Prime Minister has adopted Conservative policies, and has inherited from the Conservative Government the strongest economy in Europe? From Richmond we have a leader of the Conservative party who is a man of integrity, courage and considerable intelligence. He will become the next Prime Minister of our country.

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman used to sit above the Gangway; he now sits over in the corner. He is saying that I support the same policies as he does—I get the message. We shall build on that for the future. Indeed, we shall have to make some more room on our side of the Chamber.
I shall not go back over what I have already said, except to say that the windfall tax, the child care package, the deal for pensioners and the extra money for schools are all very different from the policies of the previous Administration. Those policies are welcomed by the vast majority of people. The reason people—I hope—support the Government and gave the Opposition such a drubbing is that they can see a Government who are delivering on their promises, in stark contrast to what went before.

Points of Order

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise certain reports in The Scotsman of yesterday and again today suggesting that four Government members of the Treasury Committee, including the Chairman, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), held a prior meeting outwith the normal cycle of Committee meetings, which one member described as a caucus meeting. The Committee is discussing Scottish funding and the Barnett formula, but no Scottish Labour or Scottish National party Member is on the Committee.
At one level, if there is some sort of anti-Scottish cabal at work on the Committee, it would be as well to flush it out. On another level, it is surely not customary for Select Committees to hold caucus meetings of this kind. I have served on Select Committees under two distinguished Chairmen who have never held part-meetings with selected members of their Committees, as far as I know.
If that is taking place, will it not devalue the whole concept of Select Committees: people reaching a consensus decision based on the evidence, as opposed to political decisions based on caucus meetings? If it continues, will not the practice devalue not just the Treasury Committee's report on the Barnett formula but all Select Committee reports?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for sending me at least one of the newspaper reports in question. I was surprised to read in that report that Select Committee meetings are taking place on party lines. If that is true—it is only a newspaper report, and I do not always accept what I read in the newspapers—I would deprecate such meetings. This is not a matter for me, but I offer the caution that it must be sorted out by the Committee concerned. I want to hear no more of these reports.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that it is the expectation of this House, if not the rule, that Ministers answer questions or give some semblance of answering them? I am sure that if you study Hansard, you will find that the Prime Minister made no attempt to answer the question that I asked him.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady is quite correct. All Ministers are accountable to the House for answering questions. Indeed, there are guidelines in "Erskine May" to that effect, as well as guidelines concerning the content of questions to Ministers.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you be kind enough to remind right hon. and hon. Members of the simple courtesy that we are supposed to observe: that when we visit each other's constituencies, we let the sitting Member know? The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) came to my constituency some months ago—I have no complaint about that—but he failed to let me know that he was doing so. I sent him a letter pointing that out, but never received a response. On Wednesday last week, he returned to my constituency; again, I was

pleased to see him, but, again, he failed to let me know that he was coming. I consider that to be a matter of great discourtesy and I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will encourage right hon. and hon. Members to return to observing that courtesy on every occasion.

Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that matter. Numerous times from this Chair I have made the point that there are common courtesies to be observed and that Members of Parliament should let each other know when they visit each other's constituency. That has been a long-standing convention, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in this way. I hope that the point has been noted by hon. Members on both sides and all Benches of the House and that such incidents will not happen again.
Now, can we have a new Member?

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Oh, what a shame to keep a lady waiting. Of course the hon. Gentleman can raise a point of order.

Mr. Brady: I do apologise, Madam Speaker.
Yesterday, I asked a simple and direct question of the Foreign Secretary about the reasons why youth unemployment in this country has fallen rapidly over the past four years, whereas it has risen rapidly in the other major European countries. He gave me an answer that was utterly misleading. In his view, the reason was simply that the number of people in that age group had fallen, but the figures I have obtained from the Library demonstrate that the percentage of that age group that is unemployed has fallen dramatically for the past four years.

Madam Speaker: That is a matter of argument, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Brady: indicated dissent.

Madam Speaker: No, there is a distinction between something that the Chair can answer and a policy matter. I cannot respond on a policy matter. The hon. Gentleman might have a strong point—I do not know—but he has to find some other means of putting it to the Ministers involved, so that they can either rectify the matter or comment on what he has to say.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), Madam Speaker. Following on, but separate to, your answer to the hon. Gentleman, will you also make it clear that when Ministers come to constituencies on what is clearly business connected with their ministerial responsibilities, they cannot claim to be on a private visit? Will you also make it clear that they are required to tell the constituency Member of Parliament and that, as I understand it, it is traditional that that Member is invited to accompany them?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It is my understanding and my experience that Members are


courteous enough, at least to me, to let me know when they are coming to my constituency, and I hope that that applies to all Ministers when they visit constituencies in their ministerial capacity and not to see their relatives.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Mrs. Jacqui Lait, for Beckenham

BILLS PRESENTED

GOVERNMENT OF WALES

Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Mr. Peter Hain and Mr. Win Griffiths, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about the National Assembly for Wales and the office of Auditor General for Wales; to reform certain Welsh public bodies and abolish certain other Welsh public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 88].

NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE

Secretary Margaret Beckett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Mr. Secretary Davies, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Blunkett and Mr. Ian McCartney, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with a national minimum wage; to provide for the amendment of certain enactments relating to the remuneration of persons employed in agriculture; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 90].

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)),

That the matter of public expenditure in Northern Ireland in 1998–99, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Welfare of Pigs

Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with
respect to the health and welfare of pigs.
This is the third in a series of Bills that I have introduced, intended to mitigate the worst excesses of factory farming. My first sought to ban the export of calves to continental veal crates. My second tried, in the wake of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, to establish a review board charged with examining the implications of intensive farming from the point of view of both human health and animal welfare. This Bill is designed to improve the welfare of pigs. Once again I am thankful to that splendid organisation, Compassion in World Farming, for the help that it has given me.
During the past few months, there has been welcome progress regarding animal welfare. In December 1996, the European Union agreed to ban the unspeakably cruel veal crate system. Sadly, that ban does not come into force until 2007, and we must watch carefully to ensure that the factory farmers do not come up with an equally odious alternative. None the less, history has been made. For the first time, the EU has acted to outlaw a cruel rearing system. I hope that very soon, battery cages and sow stalls will be scrapped throughout Europe.
In June at Amsterdam, animals were given a new status in EC law. For the first time, they were recognised as sentient beings capable of feeling pain, not as agricultural products subject to every conceivable cruelty that human ingenuity can devise. All credit is due to my hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, especially to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—who I know has animal welfare close to his heart—for that achievement.
Our task now is to ensure that the new status that the EU now accords to animal welfare does not become empty words. The Welfare of Pigs Bill is one small step along that road.
My Bill focuses on the 13 million young pigs, aged four to six months, slaughtered each year in the United Kingdom for bacon, pork and ham. Their treatment is one of the cruellest aspects of factory farming in Britain.
Pigs are intelligent, lively, active creatures. Left to their own devices, they spend three quarters of their daylight hours rooting, foraging and exploring, all of which is denied most of today's pigs, which are reared with a ruthless contempt for their well-being. Factory-farmed pigs spend their entire life indoors in barren, overcrowded sheds, without once experiencing fresh air or daylight until the day they are carted off to the slaughterhouse. Mostly, they are given no straw or other bedding. Instead, they are kept on bare concrete or slatted or perforated floors, which leads to lameness and damaged feet.
Lack of straw, combined with serious overcrowding, prevents pigs from engaging in natural behaviour. They cannot root, forage, explore or play. In order to find an outlet for those frustrated instincts, the pigs—whose pens are often devoid of any object—sometimes resort to chewing and biting one another's tails. My Bill seeks to put a stop to that. It provides, first, that indoor-reared pigs must be given ample space and appropriate bedding.
The second evil to which I seek to put a stop is forcible early weaning. In natural conditions, pigs are not weaned until they are between 13 and 17 weeks old, but on most of today's farms they are weaned at just three and a half weeks—the very point when their consumption of their mother's milk is at its height. That is done solely for the purpose of enabling sows to be made pregnant again at the earliest opportunity—in other words, it is all about profit without regard to the suffering inflicted.
Early weaning invariably inflicts stress on pigs. Specifically, a pig that has been weaned early still wants to suckle and, no longer having its mother's teat, turns to its neighbour's tail. My Bill prohibits early weaning. It stipulates that piglets must not be weaned until they are at least six weeks old. Ideally, it should be much later, but I am attempting to meet the industry halfway.
Thirdly, my Bill deals with tail docking. As we have seen, three factors—lack of straw, overcrowding and early weaning—combine to encourage tail biting. The consequences are serious. Wounds can become infected, resulting in abscesses and adding to the misery already inflicted on young pigs by the appalling conditions in which many of them are reared.
To a layman, the obvious solution would be to improve the conditions to the point at which tail biting was no longer a problem. Agribusiness, needless to say, has come up with a different answer. Having created the conditions in which tail biting is bound to thrive, the factory farmers introduce one of their cruellest tortures: they slice off piglets' tails with pliers or a hot docking iron. It goes without saying that no anaesthetic is used. That practice is supposed to be outlawed by the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, but they have been largely ignored, as have calls for the practice to cease, which have come from the Farm Animal Welfare Council. About 70 per cent. of piglets still have their tails docked in that way.
The time has come to stop pig fanners behaving as if they were above the law. In its 1996 document, "New Life for Animals", the Labour party said that it would enforce the law to end tail docking. As far I am aware, not a single offender has yet been prosecuted. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister what plans he has for enforcing the law. To assist him, my Bill strengthens the current law and tightens up poor drafting that contains some unacceptable loopholes.
It will be alleged that the pressures of the market leave agribusiness with no choice but to inflict cruelty on farm animals. It is time that that myth was exploded. I draw the attention of the House to a report entitled "Factory Farming and The Myth of Cheap Food", which was recently published by the Compassion in World Farming Trust and which explodes the lie that factory farming has given us cheap food. The report makes it clear, using data from the Meat and Livestock Commission, that free-range pork and bacon are just as cheap to produce as meat from factory-farmed pigs. It is time for the pig industry to clean up its act, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Alan Clark, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Angela Smith, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Nigel Jones, Dr. Nick Palmer and Sir Teddy Taylor.

WELFARE OF PIGS

Mr. Chris Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the health and welfare of pigs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 91].

Mr. Mullin: Friday 12 December—my 50th birthday, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Friday 12 December—I hope that I shall be there to wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment that, following a referendum to confirm popular demand, they would establish a new deal for London: a Greater London authority made up of a directly elected mayor and an elected assembly. We made that commitment because we believe that London deserves better—better than having its democratic institutions summarily abolished, better than the shabby mish-mash of unaccountable quangos and committees that were set up by the previous Government in place of a democratic citywide authority, better than to be left with no effective, democratically accountable voice for 11 years.
We share with the people of London a desire to put things right and to give them back a democratic voice that will provide strategic leadership—something that the people of London should never have been denied. However, we see no benefit in simply looking back and trying to create what once was. What we propose will be different from the sort of institution that might have been appropriate to the London of the 1880s or the 1960s— that is inevitable.
We are proposing a new democratic settlement for London, one capable of taking our capital into the next millennium. That is why we believe that London needs a mayor, directly elected by and personally accountable to its people. We believe that such a figure would reinvigorate local democracy, and provide strong leadership across the capital.
We believe that London also needs an elected assembly, to question and scrutinise the mayor, holding him or her to account; to advise on London's needs and priorities; and to scrutinise the use of public funds across the capital.
Together, the mayor and the assembly will make up a new Greater London authority, which will be capable of commanding the support and respect of the whole of London.
What we are proposing is innovative, and I recognise that change and innovation are unsettling to some. I warned on Monday of the constitutional conservatives in all parties who may seek to oppose our proposals because they find them challenging—perhaps they are scared of change, or perhaps they want simply to preserve the status quo.
We have heard a lot of cant from the Opposition about the need for two questions, and not for the first time. We have explained our position patiently and repeatedly, on Second Reading, in Committee and yesterday in answer to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member

for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). If necessary, I shall do so again now. I am sure that, yet again, our opponents will pretend not to listen.
We made it clear in the manifesto that we would offer the people of London proposals for a mayor and an assembly, both directly elected. We promised that we would offer our proposals to the people of London in a referendum, to seek their consent to what we proposed. We did not promise pick and mix. We did not promise it in the manifesto, and we are not promising it now.
To make matters easier to understand, I shall set out the reasons why I believe that our approach is right. A referendum is all about getting a clear mandate for change. It is not an opinion poll. There are at least five permutations on the subject of mayor and assembly: first, the proposition that there might be a mayor plus an assembly, both separately elected; secondly, the suggestion that there might be a mayor alone; thirdly, the proposition that there might be an assembly alone, without a mayor; fourthly, that there might be a mayor, together with an assembly made up of borough leaders; and fifthly, that there might be a mayor elected from among the members of the assembly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is proceeding carefully, and we are grateful for that. However, I challenge him on his five options. I am not aware that anyone has proposed the option that he describes as an assembly without a mayor. No one has proposed that there should not be a leader of the assembly, who would be called a mayor. An assembly without a separate mayor has been proposed, but no one is proposing that London should not have a leader.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is obviously unaware of what is going on in his own party, many of whose submissions specifically called for an assembly, but not for a mayor. That is precisely my point. If he wishes to argue that point, he may do so, but he is arguing against the evidence. There is a range of options and a range of different formulations. He is compounding the problem by identifying the number of different possible permutations of different options.
No doubt there are Liberal Democrats who would have no leader at all, and others who would have leaders elected on a job-share basis. No doubt there are others who would have leaders elected for a short term, and replaced—rotating leadership. I have no doubt about the ingenuity of the Liberal Democrat party in terms of constitutional devices. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what his colleagues favour.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is being mischievous. He knows perfectly well that no one is suggesting that there should be an assembly without a mayor as part of the assembly, and opposing a separately elected mayor. That reduces his list of five questions to four. From all the reading that I have done, no one to my knowledge has submitted a proposal for any of the other fanciful and fantastic suggestions that he made. Perhaps they come from his own fevered mind.

Mr. Raynsford: Experience of the representatives of the hon. Gentleman's party over many years bears out the truth of what I am telling him. There have been specific


submissions saying that there should be an assembly, but no mayor. That has been the subject of several submissions made to the Government, and it would be wrong to deny that point of view, if one is trying to encompass every possible point of view, as the hon. Gentleman clearly is.
How can all those options be reflected in two questions? They cannot; there is no possible second question. There is a variety of possible additional questions—second, third, fourth and fifth. The leader of Wandsworth council has proposed seven or perhaps 11 questions. There are many different additional options, but there is no single alternative second question.

Mr. Eric Pickles: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile those comments with what he said on Monday? He stated:
The Government are pragmatic and not dogmatic about the matter. We said that we believe that a single question is correct and proper, but we consulted and listened to people's views."—[Official Report, 24 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 682.]
The Minister has now ruled out such consultation.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening on Monday, and he is not listening now. I repeat, for his benefit, that we are not being dogmatic. We are approaching the issue in an extremely pragmatic and sensible way. No formulation can provide a single second option that encompasses the range of different possibilities for which hon. Members have argued.
The Conservative party advocated a framework that included two questions: first, should there be a mayor; and, secondly, should there be an assembly? Those questions clearly did not satisfy the Liberal Democrats, who wanted the formulation to include another question: should there be a mayor elected as a member of the assembly? That framework also does not satisfy the Conservatives' subsequent position that the mayor should work within an assembly comprising borough leaders. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), through his question, illustrates precisely the point that I made on Monday—to which he did not listen then—and which I repeat now. I see that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is becoming impatient, so I shall give way.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister made his comments in response to an intervention from me. I suggested that there was no formulation of two questions that he would accept. On Monday, the Minister said that I was wrong, but he has now confirmed that I was correct.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman suggested on Monday that the Government are implacably opposed to two questions. We are not: we are being pragmatic. I told him—I advise him to think about this—that we would be interested to see any formulation that covers those eventualities. The right hon. Gentleman did not advance such a proposal on Monday, and no such formulation appears on today's Order Paper. That reveals the hypocrisy of his position. He claims to support the

case for two questions, but he cannot formulate a single alternative question because he knows that there is no simple, single second question.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should not use extravagant language if he does not have the means of following it through. He knows perfectly well that two simple questions can be asked: they are the propositions that the hon. Gentleman and the Government have advanced. That is what a referendum should be about. I shall take the hon. Gentleman through that argument in my speech.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has promised to provide his formulation of a second question, and I look forward to seeing it. When I do, I shall give it my considered response. However, the House will note his inability to provide any formulation when challenged, other than to refer to the Government's proposed question, which presents the option of a mayor and an assembly. The Government believe that that integral package presents the best form of government for London. That is the proposal that we believe is right to put to the people of London.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is being misleading—or he is misleading himself. He has put forward two propositions: that London should have a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly. We contend that those two propositions should be voted on separately.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly still not listening. The Government propose that the future government of London should take the form of a directly elected mayor working with a directly elected assembly, to provide the necessary mixture of leadership and accountability. As I have argued many times in the past few weeks, there is no case, in our view, for a mayor without an assembly. It would give too much power to an individual and would not create a proper framework of accountability. The right hon. Gentleman knows that only too well, because his party has now backed away from the position that it used to adopt—it supported a mayor but not an assembly. The Conservative party now says that it recognises that there has to be an assembly, and proposes one in the form of a group of 32 borough leaders.
I also put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is monstrous hypocrisy to suggest that there is a case for two questions in the Bill when, in the most recent exercise in party democracy within the Conservative party, the proposition put to its membership was not: "Do you want the Leader of the Opposition?" and "Do you want his policy proposals?" It was: "Do you want the package all together?" When the Conservatives had the chance, they did not ask two questions; they asked one. It ill behoves them to challenge the Government now.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister is being courteous in giving way, but I fear that he simply does not understand the point. There are two questions. If the electorate of London were to say that there should not be a directly elected assembly, that would not preclude an indirectly appointed assembly to support the mayor. If the electorate of London were to take the


view of the Liberal Democrats and say that there should not be a directly elected mayor, that would not preclude the possibility of a mayor, a leader of the assembly. The options are covered in the two questions.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has just made my point. There would be no clarity. He could draw certain inferences from the outcome of two such votes, but they would be his inferences. They would not be the same inferences as those drawn by others. There would be no clarity or mandate. There would be confusion. That is the classic comment on the Conservative party.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way once more. Then I must make some progress.

Mr. Wilkinson: Am I right in drawing the inference that, by having only one question, the Government would prefer the possibility of no authority at all rather than that of a mayor or an elected assembly, which would be the possibility if there were two questions?

Mr. Raynsford: As I have pointed out before, the Government are putting a package to the people of London. If the people of London do not want it, that is their choice and we shall respect that. We believe that it is right that they should have a say, but we also believe it right that we should put before them only propositions that are workable. It would be irresponsible to put forward options that were not workable, simply to please one particular faction that argued a particular case. Our proposal is serious: to give the people of London the ultimate choice. I should have thought that most people who believed in democracy would consider that right.
I shall now deal with the other reasons why we favour our formulation of the question. As I said, some permutations would be unworkable, and that would be utterly wrong. We have already put 61 questions to the people of London. Hundreds of individuals and organisations representing tens of thousands of Londoners have responded positively. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will be aware, their considered responses run to thousands of pages. No doubt he and his researchers have read every one. Londoners have had their say on our draft proposals. It is now the task of the Government to consider those responses and to come forward with a comprehensive proposal, which we pledged to do in a White Paper.
Londoners will choose. On 7 May, they will be able to vote yes or no to a clear proposition worked up in the light of consultation responses. If they prefer another option, they can and should vote no. That is a clear choice, not a half-hearted muddle.
I have explained our position to the House. I have identified the clear tests that we applied when considering the question that should be asked. The referendum must be clear and straightforward. Complex multiple-choice questions are not an option. The referendum must be capable of providing a clear mandate on detailed proposals. It is no good casting the question in such a way that it is unclear what London wants or what Londoners will get. It must not offer unworkable solutions to the

people of London. That would be dishonest and irresponsible. We are not being dogmatic. We do not believe that there is an arguable case for more than one question. Opposition Members have had weeks to identify a clear second question, and they have failed to produce one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has argued from the Dispatch Box that an elected mayor alone would be unacceptable and, arguably, unworkable. Will he clarify the fact that, although there can be many arguments against a directly elected assembly, Ministers would not argue that a directly elected assembly would be unworkable—we have one here and we shall have one in Scotland and Wales? That must at least be a workable proposition.

Mr. Raynsford: I readily accept that the argument against a directly elected assembly on its own is not that it would be unworkable, but that we do not think that it would give the leadership necessary to London now or in the foreseeable future. We believe that a mayor and assembly together would give the right mixture of leadership and accountability to provide the strategic guidance that London needs. That is why we oppose the directly elected assembly on its own. There are other formulations that we regard as unworkable, including a mayor on his or her own and some other options.
As I have already said, Opposition Members have had weeks to identify a clear second question and have failed to produce one. The suspicion must be that, in arguing for a second question when no single formulation has been provided, Opposition Members are simply playing games. They are not serious about offering Londoners a choice. It is all delay and bluster.
In time, no doubt, the people of London will judge the Opposition for the stance that they have taken. The people of London are deadly serious in their desire for new democratic government for their city. The people of London gave their verdict in the general election on 1 May on the Conservative party and its failure to respond to the expressed views of Londoners for a new strategic authority. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) in her place, but she will be aware that, in the by-election last week, there was no ringing endorsement for her party from the people of Beckenham. There has been a swing to Labour since May, when Labour won 57 out of 74 seats in London.
We will not be put off by those who raise false fears or by those who pretend support but really want to offer only more of the same. We take heart from support offered by those who count—the people of London. The most recent and authoritative opinion poll, carried out by the Evening Standard and London Weekend Television, showed that 82 per cent. of Londoners supported the Government's plans. The same is true of the business community. Two weeks ago, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry published findings suggesting that our proposals have the support of 86 per cent. of the capital's business leaders—an overwhelming endorsement of what we are proposing.
Over the past week and a half, we have had an extended debate on the detail and principle of the Bill. It all took place on the Floor of the House, and much of it was beside the point. We promised a referendum on our proposals


and that is what we shall deliver. We promised the referendum because we believe that how we are governed is not just a matter for politicians in this place, but something in which we all have a stake as citizens. The case of the Greater London authority is a matter of profound interest to the people of London.
Democratic citywide government in London was summarily abolished in 1986. There was no consultation and no referendum. There was not one question or two questions; there was no question. Democratic citywide government was simply taken away from the people of London. We believe that it is right that Londoners should now be asked to give their consent to what we propose to establish again—democratic citywide government for London.
We shall publish clear and comprehensive proposals in the White Paper in March, and the people of London will have the opportunity to grant or withhold their consent in a referendum in May. We are confident that they will answer with a resounding yes.

Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill because, while it looks ahead to the establishment of both a directly-elected Assembly and a directly-elected Mayor for London, it fails to provide the citizens of London with the opportunity to express their views separately on those two proposals.
It is worth saying that this is the first time for almost 10 years that a reasoned amendment has been selected for debate and vote on the Third Reading of a Government Bill. It is right that the amendment has been selected, because it goes to the heart of the debate that took place during the hours in Committee.
The Bill sets down two separate propositions>: one for a directly elected assembly, and the other for a directly elected mayor. We believe that those two different propositions should be accompanied by two different questions in the referendum. The Liberal Democrats take a similar view. The Minister omitted to mention the fact that many Labour supporters also want that. Nevertheless, the Government have insisted that London will be allowed one question, and one question alone.
That issue was a continual theme of the Committee's deliberations. One of the most significant features of the Committee stage, which lasted for more than 12 hours, was that no Labour Back Bencher took part, with one exception: the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). During 12 hours of debate, precisely one Labour Back Bencher contributed. Let us take in what the hon. Gentleman had to say about having two questions.
Our consistent position has been that we support a directly elected mayor, but do not support a directly elected assembly. The hon. Gentleman, whom the Minister bracketed as a constitutional conservative—it is probably the first time that he has been bracketed as such—approaches the issue from a different direction, as he is opposed to a directly elected mayor. The view

we have in common with him and with the Liberal Democrats is that there are two distinct issues, and that the two propositions can be separated.
I advise the Minister to study the hon. Gentleman's words. On 19 November, he said:
We are not getting a single voice for London—we are getting two competing voices, locked into an institutionalised conflict.
They are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Brent, East. He listened to the arguments of his hon. Friends on Second Reading, and read them all again in Hansard. It is a pity that I have to remind the Minister of what has gone on in the debate. The hon. Gentleman characterised his hon. Friends' arguments as "pretty weedy": those were his exact words. Who am I to argue with his description of his hon. Friends?
The hon. Gentleman also revealed that many people in the Greater London Labour party are unhappy with the Government's proposals, usually because they want an assembly but not a separately elected mayor. The hon. Gentleman did the House a great service by recalling a meeting to discuss the position that he had attended. He said:
I went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party, at which we discussed the proposal that appears in the Liberal Democrats' amendment. The Greater London Labour party assembled in conference and split into working groups to discuss whether we should have a separately elected mayor. The most crowded working group was the one that discussed the relationship between the mayor and the assembly. Nine out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor, but we were told, 'You have got to have it because it was in the manifesto.'
In the full conference, the hon. Member for Brent, East was denied a vote, about which he protested.
The hon. Gentleman was the only Labour Back Bencher who spoke in the 12 hours of Committee debate. He said to the Minister:
we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to London and an insult to their intelligence."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 400–403.]
That was the only speech from a Labour Back Bencher in Committee. The hon. Member for Brent, East speaks with all the authority of being the newest member of the Labour national executive.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House what majority the Government enjoyed when the issues were put to the vote?

Sir Norman Fowler: The point that the Minister is struggling to make is that the Government have a strong position in the House. I think that we know that. The Minister's intervention is revealing, and typifies everything he has said during our debates. His view is, "Don't bother us with the arguments, and don't bother us with the detail. We've got a majority, and we are going to push the Bill through." He is expressing that view not only to Conservative Members, but to Labour Members. He is saying, "We have got the majority and we are going to do what we want." He may have lobby fodder behind him; I remind him of how the hon. Member for Brent, East described his hon. Friends.
I challenge anyone who has listened to our debates to come to the conclusion that the Government have in any way won the debate. Their replies have been a mixture of the pathetic and the hysterical, with the hysterical quite often coming from the Minister.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would not an impartial, objective observer of the proceedings of the past few days come to the conclusion that the total lack of vocal support for the Bill from Labour Members shows that they dare not be associated with what will probably be a disaster for the people of London?

Mr. Graham Allen (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): It will not be.

Sir Norman Fowler: The lack of support is very odd. I shall give way to the Whip if he wants to intervene. If he does not, I suggest that he pipes down and does not make remarks from a sedentary position, which is against the rules of the House. If he wishes me to give way, I shall gladly do so—although, from experience, I know that he does not normally have anything very sensible to say.
The hon. Member for Brent, East understates the case for a two-question referendum. The institutionalised conflict between the directly elected assembly and the directly elected mayor is not our only concern. We are also concerned about the inevitable conflict between the directly elected assembly and directly elected borough councillors. One result of the Bill is that the assembly will, step by step, claim more power from the boroughs. That is already a real concern in the boroughs, and it is not confined simply to Conservative councillors.

Mr. Raynsford: There are not many of them.

Sir Norman Fowler: There may not be as many as we should like, but the Minister should wait until next May.
Assembly members will claim that they are elected, and that they therefore have the right to power. I do not believe that it is remotely possible that an assembly that is elected to carry out strategic thinking, checking and little else will be happy and satisfied with that role. I can think of no elected assembly that would be happy with such a role.
Step by step and year by year, the assemblymen will seek further powers. It is clear from the Second Reading speeches of some Labour Members that they would like a return to something similar to the Greater London council. They think that it is a great pity that it was abolished, and would like it returned.
If more powers go to the elected assembly, as I predict they will, they will not come from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Like any other Department, it will be reluctant to the point of refusal to give up powers. The powers will come from the boroughs.
Hon. Members should remember the exact structure for London that they are being asked to approve in Bills that, regrettably, are coming before the House at different times. There will be a directly elected mayor, a directly elected assembly, a regional development agency appointed by the Department, a Government office for London, 32 borough councils, and, under another Bill that will probably be introduced in the House of Lords—the

so-called local democracy innovations Bill—there is the prospect of directly elected borough mayors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I do not know whether that noise could be characterised as cheering. I am not sure whether the Whip was clearing his throat or asking leave to go. If he wants to go, he may by all means do so. The local democracy innovations Bill will contain a proposal—not referred to during the debate—for directly elected borough mayors in addition to the mayor for London.
The Government are proposing layer after layer of administration and bureaucracy—a mixture of local government, central Government and appointed quango. The Minister chances his arm deploring quangos. The regional development agency will be the biggest quango ever to be appointed in this country.

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that the regional development agency will be accountable and answerable to the strategic authority. It will not be a quango; it will be part of the democratic structure.

Sir Norman Fowler: Oh, part of the democratic structure. Will it be an elected body?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confusing roles. He is supposed to be delivering a speech. The Conservatives know only too well about appointed bodies, because they created so many quangos, joint boards and unelected bodies during their period in office—bodies that we are replacing with democratic accountability.

Sir Norman Fowler: I think that the answer was no. The Minister knows that it will not be an elected or democratic body. He also knows that he is in all kinds of trouble in different parts of the country on the issue.
The one action that Londoners could take would be to vote against one of the layers, but they are being offered no choice on that. The Minister says that it is difficult to ask two questions. I have listened to every variation of his replies to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and me on that. I find his arguments extraordinary, even after hearing them three times. Sometimes they have changed, or they have been peppered with vague assurances that were then withdrawn.
We should ask two questions on the basis of the Government's two propositions to ascertain the support for a directly elected mayor and for a directly elected assembly. The Minister says that that is no good, because the Government might be beaten. His objection is that he might lose the referendum. Indeed, the Government may be beaten. We may end up with a mayor, but no directly elected assembly. Conceivably—although I think it doubtful—it could be vice versa. The risk of being beaten is implicit in a referendum. There is not a great deal of point in a referendum unless there is some risk of being beaten.
With this referendum, future action can clearly be guided by the vote. As we have pointed out, this is a pre-legislative referendum. No Bill will be ready when the referendum is held. No Bill will have been drafted when the referendum is held. If the people of London


voted against a directly elected assembly, the Government would have an opportunity to think again about the legislation.
There is a formidable coalition behind a two-question referendum. The Conservative party backs it, the Liberal Democrats back it, and more than half the London boroughs have backed it in the different votes that they have had. As I have pointed out, many Labour Members back it as well.
It is true that very few house-trained Labour Members who sit obediently behind the Minister back two questions, but other more independent spirits back the prospect. The tragedy is—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East for explaining it—that Labour Members are prevented from voting against the proposal. According to the hon. Gentleman's account, doing so would be an offence against Labour party standing orders, and they would be debarred from being Labour party candidates in future.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Sir Norman Fowler: Those are not my words. The Minister may become indignant about them, but they are the words of the hon. Member for Brent, East. We do not expect a great deal of Labour support in the Lobby, for the very reason he set out.
Outside the House, there is little doubt about how the public feel. The vast majority of the press support two questions.

Mr. Keith Hill: What?

Sir Norman Fowler: You know—newspapers; the things that one reads each morning, such as The Times. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not read such things. It is probably safer for him not to do so, but merely take instructions straight from his bleeper without being confused by facts.
Although the Minister admitted that The Times, The Daily Telegraph and a range of other newspapers are not with him, he asked, "What about the Evening Standard?" We told him about hostile news stories, but he said: "No, no. Not the news stories—the editorials." Max Hastings, the editor of the Evening Standard, whom I respect a great deal—we used to report together in Northern Ireland a long time ago—must be delighted with the authority that the Minister has given him.
I wonder how far the Minister follows the editor of the Evening Standard, and whether, on Friday when the House votes on the Bill on fox hunting, he will be standing four square behind him and the Evening Standard leaders, which are consistently opposed to what the Minister and most Labour Members appear to support.
I shall cite the one newspaper that the Minister has so far prayed in aid, albeit in a deeply misleading way—The Guardian. We all remember the quotation that he gave and the bit that he left out. The Guardian—there is no accounting for taste—thinks that the Minister's policy is correct. It also says that the policy should be put to the test.
The point that The Guardian made in the little bit of the sentence that unfortunately and unhappily the Minister did not read out—I am sure that it was a complete oversight on his part—was that, even if he is correct, he should make his argument in a campaign.
The Guardian actually said:
the Government's package deal allows no room for those who want a mayor but no assembly … or those who want an assembly but no mayor …We subscribe to neither view. But to deny them any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say.
That has been our case throughout.
The Government are wrong, and their actions betray a fantastic lack of confidence in their case. The Government's Green Paper asked the public no fewer than 61 different questions about their proposals—not 10 or 20 questions, but 61. The only issue that those questions did not raise is whether the public want two separate questions in the referendum. That issue is not raised, for the good reason that the Government know that they would be defeated on it. Our amendment would give the people of London a real choice and the opportunity to decide, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This debate, coming as it does so shortly after the Committee stage, is like the third reading of marriage banns in church, when that still happened. Two votes or not two votes—that is the question. Two voices for London, or not two voices for London—that is the issue.
The Liberal Democrats have made their position clear. We support a referendum on whether London should have its own government, and we will vote for that. We support the idea that the referendum should be on 7 May next year, on the same day as the local elections, and we have voted for that. We support the idea of a Greater London authority that is secure and long-standing and that delivers strategic services across the metropolitan area, and we shall vote for that. However, as the Minister for London and Construction and the Opposition spokesman know, after that, views on what is only a limited Bill begin to diverge.
The Government believe that there should be one question. The rest of us say there should be more than one. Should there be an assembly? Most people say yes, although the Tories say no with a qualification. Should the mayor be part of the assembly? Our party says yes and many Labour Members say yes, but the Conservatives—who are paradoxically in agreement with the Government—say no.
Should the mayor be separate from the assembly? The Government say yes, but most of their supporters appear to say no, the Conservatives say no, we say no and so do many others. Only a very few people argue—and even then with qualifications—that we should have a mayor but not an elected assembly. However, that is the position of those on the Conservative Front Bench.
The Minister may think that those permutations mean that we need five questions. I shall show him shortly, and from a source that he may find a little surprising, that two questions are a possible option.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, and we voted for it because it was selected by


Madam Speaker. We voted for it not because we were against the Bill, but because we wanted the Bill to be right. The Clerks tell me—I obviously asked the same question as the right hon. Gentleman—that it is unusual, but "Erskine May" allows it, to have a reasoned amendment on Third Reading. The argument for that is stronger because we have not had a Report stage. I expect that there will be a vote on that, and my hon. Friends and I will vote for the reasoned amendment, making it clear that we still do not think that the Bill is right.
Interestingly, two things have emerged between the vote on the first reasoned amendment and that on the second, which will take place tonight. First—the Minister admitted as much on Monday and confirmed it at the Dispatch Box today—the Government are not implacably, dogmatically or theologically opposed to the idea of more than one question. It is a matter of pragmatism.
I hope that, after the other place has debated the Bill and it comes back to us, even if those who say, as I do, that there should be more than one question, do not win the day, the Government will reconsider the question put by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), which suggested a slight technical change that would bring about a significant improvement in the one question. If we are to ask about direct elections both for the mayor and for the assembly, for the sake of clarity it should be expressly that which appears on the ballot paper. I have seen and heard no reason for objecting to that.
We are encouraged that we are entering on the Bill's third stage in the House, and shall move towards its next stage in the other place, with at least the possibility of more than one question remaining open.
The second interesting revelation on Monday was the fact that the Government do not see the new body as regional government. I had always understood that they did—that they saw the new London body as potentially the first of a series of regional government bodies throughout England.
Of course there are separate issues involving the regional development authority. My hon. Friends and I strongly believe that that authority or agency, when it is set up, should be accountable to the Greater London authority.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: It will be. We share the Government's view about that. Clearly it would be illogical to have the new body free-standing rather than answerable.
However, I ask the Government to think again about whether the only logical region that we have around the metropolis for the foreseeable future should be that currently defined by the Greater London boundary.
Of course in politics there is no perfection. Of course in some senses parts of London continue beyond the edge. The Surrey borders around Spelthorne provide an obvious example, and the Kent borders stretching down to Gravesham and Dartford another. However, in reality the region has become fairly well established as that within the immediate Greater London boundary.
One of the things that troubled my hon. Friends and me was the fact that, on Monday, the Government did not accept even small and seemingly incontestably good

amendments. I shall cite only one example which, as it happens, was moved by the Conservatives. It seems to me undeniable that, when Scotland and Wales have had referendums with voting taking place between 7 am and 10 pm—the conventional period for voting in general elections—London should have the same.
When we are doing something as important as setting up a citywide authority, or the first regional government in England, we should allow people to vote for that extended period. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) put the obvious point that many people in London go out for various reasons well before 7 o'clock in the morning, and some are not back until very late. I can testify to that. I have seen people rushing in to polling stations at 10 to 10, or even 5 to 10, at night, having just returned from work and had a quick meal at home.
There will always be technical problems, but where there is a will there is a way. Why should the option be between having local elections with two hours more for voting and a referendum with two hours less? It strikes me that it would be to the benefit of everybody for local elections to have two hours more and the referendum not to have two hours less. I was sad that the Government did not accept that idea on Monday, because they did not seem to have any strong reason not to. I hope that they will be less dogmatic in another place.
As a result of the Government's position, we have had no Report stage. As I pointed out to Madam Speaker on Monday, no provision had been made for one. The Leader of the House had simply assumed that there would be none. Thank goodness that Madam Speaker was there to defend the interests of the House and to say that there may always be a Report stage—that even the present Government cannot assume that there will not be one.
On Monday an opinion was expressed on both sides of the House—or rather, to tell the truth, it was expressed more on the Opposition side than on the Government side. That was that, in the submissions that we have now been able to read—I must admit that I have not read every word of those; I have had better things to do—many voices have been raised against the Government's proposal.
I must be honest and say that I have not read the submissions in their totality, so I do not have an answer across the balance. However, I did what I said on Monday I would do. For the record, I read the submissions from self-identifying Labour sources—local Labour parties, Labour constituency parties, Labour borough or branch parties, Labour members, and Labour regional organisations.
I stand to be challenged—noticeably, the Minister did not challenge me on Monday—but, of the 30 Labour responses, 10 appeared to be or were expressly in support of the Government's proposals, four were very cautious about the idea of a directly elected mayor but did not expressly say that they were opposed, and 16, which is a majority of 30 by any definition, were expressly, explicitly, succinctly and in some cases fiercely against. From the available evidence—the best is the written evidence submitted to the Government's response— the majority of Labour submissions were against the Government's proposals.
We have all been digging around—or not digging around—to discover the history of the now famous meeting of the Greater London Labour party chaired


by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). For a meeting that was presumably closed to non-members, we are all doing pretty well. I have the most explicit version yet of what happened, and will put it on the record, as it answers the Minister's difficult question.
This month, the Labournet—I always thought that technology was dangerous—which is the Labour news disseminated via the internet, contains two reports of that famous meeting. One is by Dorothy Macedo and the other by Leonora Lloyd, who are both members of the Greater London Labour party executive. Those reports are entirely available, and I intend to quote them, but I promise that I will not do so selectively in any way that distorts them.
Dorothy Macedo writes:
The original discussion document, A Voice for London, was part of the Road to the Manifesto exercise in 1996. The Greater London Labour party …executive debated the matter in detail in June 1996 and voted that the mayor of the new Authority should be the leader of the majority party, not a separately elected person with executive powers.
In July 1997 the Government issued the green paper, New Leadership for London. The GLLP convened a consultation conference on 12th October to discuss the options. It was a delegate conference but on arriving we learnt that it was not planned to take any votes"—
that in itself might merit the observation, new Labour, no votes—
At the opening session, GLLP chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP bowed to pressure from delegates and agreed that workshops could submit resolutions to the closing plenary if they had strong views.
There were four workshops: the mayor and assembly, electoral issues, functions of the authority, and financial arrangements.
I attended the workshop on the mayor and assembly"—
clearly the popular one—
which was chaired by GLLP vice-chair Val Stansfield. The prepared list of issues for the workshop did not include the question of whether we actually wanted an executive mayor.
Well, there is a surprise.
Speaker after speaker explained the democratic and practical objections to an executive mayor. Ken Livingstone pressed for the referendum which will ask voters if they want a new Greater London authority to also include the questions whether voters want such a mayor and whether the assembly should have tax-varying powers.
In an amusing byway, the report continues:
Not everyone felt cross about being denied a vote: a member of the GMB delegation protested that they could not vote as they had not been mandated. But the closing date for submissions is 24th October, so if the GMB has not decided its attitude yet, it makes you wonder when they intend to do it.
And when the workshop chair allowed an indicative vote on the question of a separately elected mayor, the GMB representatives were among the eight (out of the 80 plus present) to vote in favour!
Some delegates passed resolutions to the chair but she declined to put them to the vote and when we got to the final plenary, Jim Fitzpatrick refused to put the views of the workshops to the vote on the grounds that they were not in the form of resolutions.
Leonora Lloyd does not simply provide a critique: she comes up with the answer. She says:
The recent GLLP 'conference' to discuss the proposed Greater London Authority …and mayor was not allowed to take any votes, only 'soundings'. This was the first conference held by the GLLP for two years.

There is a strong comment coming up, which I do not endorse; I am merely reading it:
The chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP manipulated the meeting shamelessly to avoid even indicative votes. But it was clear that the London labour movement is still opposed to a directly elected Mayor and wants a bigger and more powerful authority than the one proposed.
For the London executive, the discussion has been going on for a couple of years, for others less. But we keep coming up with the wrong answer: No to a directly elected mayor. It appears that Londoners are a little dim. Ask them two questions …and they come over all faint. According to our leaders if we ask two questions we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly.
I left out the parenthesis, which sets out two questions. They are not our questions or the Conservative questions, but they seem a good starting point. The first is:
Do you want an elected assembly?";
the second is:
Do you want a directly elected Mayor?
If the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, I and others do not rise to the challenge put to us, and we do not produce a better set of two questions, then those, from a member of the Minister's own party, are perfectly respectable.
The questions are not far from being simply a breaking into two halves of the question in the schedule. The Minister seemed to find that difficult, but it seems extremely easy to me.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's narrative, but he might recall that that is exactly what we have been advocating over the past two or three days. He says that it is not what we advocated, but I have our words before me, and it seems to me that it is precisely so.

Mr. Hughes: It is not word for word, but I do not want to quibble. My point is that there is a simple proposal from Labour party members in London, and if we cannot supply, or Ministers cannot accept, an answer from here, Londoners will understand that there are two issues at stake: do they want an elected assembly, and do they want a mayor? Those are easy concepts. We can add the word "separately" in the ballot paper, as Ministers have done. There need be only two questions.

Mr. Raynsford: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that that makes impossible the permutation suggested in Committee by his party, asking people whether they want the mayor to be elected as a member of the assembly?

Mr. Hughes: I accept that we suggested that, because I wanted to be absolutely explicit, but the Minister himself said that one need not put everything—how many members, what voting system and so on—in the question. The two propositions I cited do not do that. It is pretty obvious that someone will lead an assembly once it is elected.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Really?

Mr. Hughes: The Minister may have been to an assembly in her party, but I have never been to one in mine, at which someone has not been in charge.


This place has someone in charge, as does the other place. The reality is that someone will be in charge. If there is only one person in charge—whether called the leader or the mayor—that person is the boss. That is the system in Paris, in Barcelona and in every other major European city apart from Rome.
I shall abridge the last part of my narrative. The workshop that considered the proposals for mayor voted indicatively 10 to one against direct elections—not because of a lack of belief in democracy.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: The Opposition parties are portraying the Greater London Labour party's consultative conference on our proposals for an elected mayor and assembly somewhat inconsistently. It is claimed that an overwhelming majority at the conference were against the proposals, but the hon. Gentleman can take my word for it that only 16 respondents out of more than 300 people there were against the proposals. The reason why there were so few supportive Labour party comments was that we had explained the legislation, and most people who turned up at the consultative conference felt at ease with the Government's proposals.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that interpretation, but I am aware of just two sets of statistics. The people who "voted" at this non-voting conference appeared to be against the Government proposals by a majority of nine or 10 to one; and a majority of those who sent representative submissions to the Government's review also appeared to be against. It is of course true that many Members of all parties have not spoken on the issue.
I am not arguing that the Government are necessarily wrong. I am not trying to win the argument. I am simply saying that we need two questions, so that the people can decide. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town must at least accept that the electorate have some interest in this matter and a right to vote on it.
My party has said that there should be an electoral convention—an idea that was defeated the other evening. It need not be done by statute; we can go away and try to sort out an electoral system by agreement. What is good enough for Scotland may be good enough for London, too. It is above all vital that the proposals in their final form should allow for a properly elected democratic body for London.
The Minister for Transport in London has been honourable enough to accept that there must be a system of fairness for all voters. There must also be natural constituencies and genuine voter choice. I am encouraged to learn that the Home Secretary, in last night's debate on the European elections, accepted the argument for some voter choice in the European context. That makes it impossible to argue against the idea for London.
Finally, I want to pray in aid some remarks by the Electoral Reform Society, a body which admittedly holds its own view. Its arguments are nevertheless good and succinct. It wants the alternative vote system for the mayoral election. Some people call that the single transferable vote, but let us not bother with semantics at this stage.
The alternative vote avoids the problems of both first-past-the-post and the second ballot system by allowing voters to number candidates in order of preference. There is no need for tactical voting. The vast majority of Londoners would have no problems in casting a preferential vote.

We agree with the society's recommendation for the election of the mayor.
If the assembly is to be elected separately, the Electoral Reform Society—it happens to be based in my constituency but its remit obviously goes wider than that—suggests:
The single transferable vote is the ideal system for use in multi-member districts. It enables the electorate to cast preferential votes and the result is typically highly proportional, in terms of party votes as well increasing representation for women and ethnic minorities. Of all the systems usually considered for use in the United Kingdom STV provides the greatest degree of voter choice. For these reasons, the Society recommends that the single transferable vote in multi-member districts be used to elect the London Assembly.
The society ends by saying:
It is important that a system is used for electing the assembly which allows for all opinions to be fairly represented. Any system which tends to lead to domination by a single party would be wholly unacceptable for electing the assembly. Using a system which produces proportional representation of the people helps to meet the democratic, inclusive, consensual and representative criteria.
I put it to the House that there are other ways of arriving at natural constituencies that reflect the natural communities we all represent—different communities, in all senses. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town clearly represents the east end and does so proudly, and others of us represent other parts of the city. It is possible to take the Kent parts, the Surrey parts, the Essex parts, the Middlesex parts and the old inner-London parts, and so find five or six natural communities.
Outside the Chamber, I shall seek to persuade colleagues on both sides of the House that we might be able to do that to good effect. If we do, we might be able to persuade people to feel included. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) plans to speak later on that subject.
I hope that the result of our deliberations is that—even if it takes some time to feed through—we shall have improved the process of deciding what the assembly should be and, as a result, improved the assembly. If London is to be a really great city, it will be great because it is a democratic city—one in which everyone feels included in the democratic process. Then we shall be a model not only of commercial, financial and cultural success, but of democratic success. That is a prize worth striving for, and I do not believe our striving thus far has been in vain.

Ms Karen Buck: I am delighted to speak in the debate. Having listened to and read through the debate in Committee, I remain convinced that the Bill will give Londoners what they want and that the argument for an integrated and balanced package of mayor and assembly is absolutely right.
We have heard many speeches about the issue of the questions. I am baffled because despite Opposition Members' claims to be united on the subject of the two questions that they want asked, at least four questions have been put forward by Opposition Members this afternoon. In addition, I understand that the opposition debate in London has now moved on to consider incorporating the question of whether a directly elected


mayor should be scrutinised by a board comprising the 32 boroughs. That means a minimum of three questions on that issue alone.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) seemed to imply that the media were focusing on the issue of whether there should be two questions. Frankly, as one who has been following closely the debate in the London media, I cannot remember seeing more than—

Mr. Pickles: It would have been easier for the hon. Lady to follow and contribute to the debate if she had attended the Committee stage.

Ms Buck: I attended the Committee for at least part of the debate and I read it all in Hansard, so that is not entirely fair.
I was speaking about the alleged media fixation on the number of questions. I do not recollect having noticed a great deal of media concern on that issue—in fact, what comes through most clearly in media discussion of London government is the absolute importance of coherence and effectiveness. That is right and proper and coincides with the Government's position—a balanced package consisting of mayor and assembly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the debate within the Labour party. I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that the overwhelming view within the Labour party is one of support for the policies on which we campaigned during the general election and which we sold to voters on the doorstep. It is specious to try to build an opposition from 16 representations. Yes, there was a debate in the Labour party—which is right and proper, especially in the case of a new, important constitutional development. In the circumstances, I would have been horrified if a debate had not taken place. Of course some people are uncommitted, and I am happy with that, but the overwhelming view in the party is support for the proposal.
The clear message that has emerged is that Londoners want a London authority. There is no great buzzing debate out there about how its different components should interact, but people want it to work and want it to be effective.
In Committee, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who shares with me representation of the borough of Westminster, mocked me—I hope kindly—for claiming an over-enthusiasm among Londoners for this debate. He said that the issue was never raised by any of his constituents south of the Westway and that I was claiming that it was the number one issue on the doorstep. Although it would be unfair to claim that on the No. 31 bus they talk of little else, it is nonsense to say that the need for a London authority is not an issue of concern and interest to Londoners.
Earlier in the year I carried out a survey, in which we sent a questionnaire to 10,000 members of the electorate with whom we had not had previous contact, asking them about their local priorities. To my mixed delight and horror, 1,000 of them replied. The horror was because I then had to write 1,000 personal replies.
The single overwhelming priority, apart from very specific and local matters—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) gesticulates.

Mr. Pickles: Do you find it a little peculiar that you got the same number of responses in your constituency as the Minister got—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. He should not talk about my constituency. He means the hon. Lady's constituency.

Mr. Pickles: I am so sorry—the hon. Lady's constituency. Is the hon. Lady surprised that she received nearly the same number of responses from her constituency as the Minister for London and Construction received from the whole of London? Does she think there is something wrong with the consultation exercise that the Government did?

Ms Buck: I am not in the slightest bit surprised. The response rate was extremely good, although I have not prepared statistical notes on the subject. I am not sure what aspersions the hon. Gentleman is casting on the consultation process, but I think that we have been getting a good solid response on the subject, both in the Government's consultation process and in my local consultation process.
The single most important issue raised by constituents was that of the London environment, including transport and all the issues relating to the quality of the environment. Unbidden—given that they were sent a fairly straightforward tick-box questionnaire—people wrote screeds and screeds on the subject. A consistent theme emerged—that London's environment and transport are undermined by the lack of a coherent London government that is able to speak up for London. People feel that London has been the loser on every front, from its economy to its arts, its transport, its environment and its economic regeneration, because not one organisation has a democratic mandate to speak for Londoners. London's voice is lost in the bewildering plethora of quangos and Government agencies that claim to speak for it.
Conservative Members are as wrong to claim that there is public indifference on the subject as they are wrong to claim that the one subject that excites people is the number of questions. Give people a specific opportunity to comment on the subject, as I did and as the Government have done, and people will respond very positively and welcome the proposal.
As several of my colleagues have said, we have to thank the Greater London council for some of that positive response. I do not want the Greater London council recreated. Ten years on, life has changed.[Interruption.]I mean that. We cannot go back. Some of the functions that have been devolved to boroughs have been satisfactorily taken on and absorbed by the boroughs.
However, the GLC was absolutely right to reach out to communities that had been abandoned by central Government, then run by the Conservative party. It excited people; it engaged in a new sort of politics. It talked to the black and minority ethnic communities of


London, to young Londoners and to people with disabilities. It addressed issues involving women and domestic violence. Those issues were not touched by the institutions of Government and, rightly, were not a primary concern of individual boroughs.
I hope and believe that some of those characteristics— not functions—of the GLC, such as its sassiness, its unconventional nature, its inclusiveness and its outward-looking approach, will characterise both the new authority and the mayor. A Government office for London with an electoral mandate is not good enough: we want more than just a managerial approach, although good management is important. We need more if we are to promote our city internationally, to fight for our share of resources among the world's capitals and, very important, as I said on Second Reading, to fight for London's fair share of resources with the national Government—an issue which continues to concern me and many of my colleagues.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that he feared the inexorable growth of the ambitions of the Greater London assembly. That is specious nonsense. The functions proposed for the London authority are ambitious. We are talking about economic regeneration and strategic planning in an enormously divided community that faces a great many challenges. We want to look at the arts, at grants, at the management of transport and the environment—all those issues come before we start to look at the devolved boards, the development agency and the fire and civil defence authority. That is more than enough for an assembly to do.
We have spent a great deal of time on the potential conflict between the assembly and the mayor. That argument seems to have been Opposition Members' only attempt at an intellectual justification for opposing one or other of the Government's proposals according to their political taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) also touched on that issue in Committee. He upbraided me for an alleged inconsistency in my promotion of the government for London—the assembly and the mayor—because I referred to a single voice. I am prepared to concede his point on linguistic grounds, but the point is not that the mayor and the authority should speak on the same issues in exactly the same tone—precisely the opposite is true. There should be a creative tension between the two: the assembly will scrutinise the mayor's work and the mayor will provide dynamic leadership. The combination of those two will make the system work.
The mayor and the assembly will provide a voice that is different from the current voice. The board of the 32 boroughs that Opposition Members propose would have at least 32 voices. It is clear that on a number of crucial issues the representatives of Barking, of Westminster, of Kensington and of Barnet have different agendas—and it is completely right that they should. That is why we have local authorities which fight their own corner, and why central and outer London often have different agendas. That is why we need something different from a borough-based representation in a pan-London authority.
The mayor and the assembly will have different but complementary and balancing roles. They will both speak with democratic legitimacy. If necessary, we should allow

differences of opinion and allow the debate to be played out in public as that is right and healthy. They must speak for London as a whole, not its component parts.
Opposition Members have made heroic but futile efforts to oppose the legislation while still attempting, for their political purposes, to give Londoners what they want. I am delighted that the Labour Government have moved quickly to give Londoners what they want and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), but she is wrong in many respects, and in one important respect in particular: she says that we oppose the proposals. We do not oppose the proposals. We have tabled a constructive reasoned amendment. That is unusual on Third Reading, and has not happened for several years, but there is a clear determination among Conservative Members not to deny the people of London a say.
The hon. Lady seemed a little confused about the fact that I was amazed by the returns that she had had. She sent out 10,000 forms and received 1,000 back. That is no criticism of the hon. Lady; a 10 per cent. return is terrific. However, a substantive point needs to be made.
I see the Minister for London and Construction wincing in his seat. Had he been as successful as the hon. Lady, he would have received not a paltry 1,200 returns, but more than 700,000. No doubt there are those in the Prime Minister's office at this moment who will look through Hansard and say that the hon. Lady must receive rapid promotion.

Ms Buck: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the representations made to the Government were representative of organisations, so the 1,000-plus forms received by the Government speak for tens of thousands of Londoners in voluntary, community and residents organisations and other representative capacities?

Mr. Pickles: I do not want to do anything to prevent the hon. Lady's rapid promotion, but I must point out that the representations that the Minister received were from individuals as well. Anybody could write in. The Government did not invite only big organisations. They said, "Let's have a voice from London. Anyone who is bored on the No. 11 bus can write in," but not many people did. That is the important point that the hon. Lady must understand.
The way in which these debates have been conducted places a heavy burden on another place. Only there will there be a possibility of allowing London a voice. The Government have shown an unwillingness to listen to or address the argument. Opposition was dismissed. We heard such cutting put-downs as, "You are missing the point," and, "If you are making a point, you have failed to make it," and, "We are not listening to that."
In this Chamber, Disraeli and Gladstone have stood. Churchill made great speeches.

Ms Glenda Jackson: They would not have said that.

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is probably right. In those days there was a tradition in the House of addressing


the debate. Now there is a tradition in the House of using the Government's majority to push legislation through. It is either, "We don't want to listen," or it is straightforward vulgar abuse.
There was not going to be a Report stage. Everything was pre-organised. Instructions went down from on high to the Minister not to take any amendments, because the Government did not want to be troubled with a Report stage. In place of argument, we have either had a chorus of, "We're the masters now," or a trip down memory lane and recollections of the Greater London council.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to the maximum attendance of Labour Back Benchers. There are seven Members present who are not members of the payroll vote. For most of our deliberations, the Opposition have outnumbered Labour Members. I understand that a call has gone out to try to fill the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) spoke about the terracotta army. There are people in the parliamentary Labour party with a voice. I have been approached by London Members who have grave reservations about the single question in the referendum, and who support the calls of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for two questions, but who are not prepared to vote against the Government's proposals because of the changes in the rules of the parliamentary Labour party which mean that, were they to speak up for what their constituents want, they would be debarred from standing for Parliament again as a member of the Labour party.
During the trips down memory lane, we heard how wonderful the GLC was. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was the first Back Bencher to suggest that the GLC was less than perfect. The recollections might be justified if there was to be a return of the GLC, but clearly there is not.
There is an unwillingness even to argue the case for a mayor, in conjunction with a strategic authority. Unless we get the opportunity in another place to present those two questions, the Government will win the argument by default, because they do not need to address these important questions.
On Second Reading, the Minister for London and Construction promised that we would find out why it was essential that there should be a mayor, in conjunction with a strategic authority. The first time that we got any idea why those arrangements were so important was at 6.35 pm on Monday, when the Minister said that there were four reasons why it was important to have a strategic authority alongside a directly elected mayor. I shall paraphrase what the hon. Gentleman said.
The first reason is that that is in the Green Paper. The second reason is that there is no simple second question that can be asked. The Minister said that again today. The third mighty reason, which perhaps Disraeli might not have received from the Dispatch Box, is that the suggestion is unworkable. The fourth reason is that we need a clear question. Those four reasons could be put into one: "We will not have it, because we don't want to have it." That is not an answer. The Minister may not have realised it at the time, because the sad death had not yet been announced, but that could have been the memorial lecture for Dr. Hastings Banda. It was a non-answer.
Elsewhere, we were told that the mayor would be too powerful. That is the only real answer that we have received. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said that it is immensely important that there should be creative tension between a directly elected assembly and a directly elected mayor. Apart from the statements that the Government do not want it, that the mayor would be too powerful, and that we need creative tension, no arguments have been articulated in the Chamber. It is the duty of another place to ensure that the arguments are put together.
The Conservative party believes that there should be two questions, as do the Liberal Democrats and the London Labour party. The intervention of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was a brave attempt to smooth over the cracks, but it was a little like the late Emperor Hirohito saying at the end of the war that events had not entirely gone to his satisfaction.
Anyone who reads the papers or surfs the net knows that the London Labour party wants two questions. Anyone who heard the contributions of the hon. Member for Brent, East knows that the Labour party in London wants two questions. The only people who seek to deny them that are those on the Government Front Bench.
If there is to be a strategic authority, a clear case must be made for it. With the exception of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, Labour Members reached no real consensus as to what the authority should be. The majority of contributions on Second Reading favoured a return to the GLC. Almost every Labour Back Bencher described the Greater London council as a marvellous body that delivered many benefits to Londoners. I agree with those Ministers who said that that was nonsense. With a lump in their throats, Labour Members described the new authority as GLC mark 2—a variation of "The Empire Strikes Back"; a revenge for the 11 years when London was denied such a body.
However, Ministers have been keen to stress that there will be no return of that evil empire and that we have nothing to fear. They claim that the strategic authority will be quite different from the GLC. Yet the Green Paper remains vague—perhaps such documents should be vague—as to the form that the authority will take. One thing is certain: its power will come not from Government but from the boroughs. The strategic authority will be the dumping ground for problems in London.
Labour Members already claim that the Greater London authority will deal with all sorts of matters. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) made the ridiculous suggestion that the authority should consider the problem of aircraft noise—in spite of the fact that most aircraft have left the Greater London area within 90 seconds of take-off. Before the recess, the Minister for Transport in London said that the authority would consider the finances of London Underground—despite the fact that that issue will be resolved long before the body comes into being.
We had a clear example this morning of how the authority will be used as a dumping ground when the Minister for the Environment appeared before the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. He spoke in a most courteous manner and was asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—who is in the Chamber and will


no doubt seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a straightforward question about what part the Greater London authority would play in addressing the problem of air pollution. The Minister said that the Greater London authority would be the "ideal" body to monitor that problem.
There was further discussion about the strategic authority, and it was suggested that, if the traffic situation in the inner city worsened, London could embrace the same traffic restrictions as were introduced recently in Paris, whereby cars with certain number plates were restricted from entering the city on a particular day. To be fair, the Minister pointed out that London boroughs already have the power to impose those restrictions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984—which was amended subsequently to deal with a problem that occurred in the constituency of the Minister for London and Construction.
We can put to one side the issue of the desirability of closing London's roads to traffic, but we must acknowledge that the closure of roads in Paris affected a far smaller area than would occur in London—even then, 11,000 policemen were deployed to enforce the restrictions in Paris. It would clearly be ridiculous to close Romford, Upminster, Barnet, Uxbridge or the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Such restrictions could be considered in Westminster, Camden, Islington or Lambeth. However, as the London boroughs may already impose those restrictions, it would be absurd for the strategic authority to take that power and concentrate it in a few areas.

Ms Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be better if Westminster banned particular cars on a Wednesday and Camden banned them on a Thursday? That would be the consequence of devolving that strategic matter to individual boroughs.

Mr. Pickles: It would be absurd to close Camden— although it might have been sensible to do something like that in Greenwich. In the debate about a strategic authority versus a mayor, we must appreciate that a mayor would be in the best position to liaise with the various London boroughs—and, more important, with the Government. We cannot simply cut off central London without recognising that that will have an enormous effect on the rest of the country.
It is possible to restrict traffic in Greenwich without causing knock-on effects throughout the country— although, given some lines of communication, even that might prove difficult. However, it would be impossible to cut off traffic in the inner-London area, in those boroughs to which I have referred, without causing enormous knock-on effects. A strategic authority would contribute nothing to solving that problem: it would simply take powers from individual boroughs.
We acknowledge that London needs a mayor—the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave many reasons in support of that proposition—but no proper case has been made in favour of a strategic authority. Perhaps such a case could be made, but Labour Members have declined to argue for it in this Chamber. That is why we have put down a reasoned amendment this evening: we believe that the people of London deserve some kind of choice.
The Minister for London and Construction made a very interesting speech. He said on Monday—and he repeated it today—that the Government are not dogmatic about the single-vote issue. I welcome that attitude; it is an important matter. The Minister said that, if two questions can be formulated, the Government will consider them. The argument about whether we should have a mayor or a strategic authority is a matter of public and political debate. According to normal conventions in this country, when the politicians argue, the people decide. By offering a single question in the referendum, the people will not have the opportunity to decide.
The other place has a strong duty to examine the matter most carefully. It must reflect the will and the consensus that exists across the parties about determining a second question. If the people are denied a second question, the referendum process will become meaningless.

Mr. Tony McNulty: I was present for much of the Second Reading debate and I witnessed, or subsequently read, the proceedings in Committee. Opposition Members made some useful and positive contributions regarding several of the issues before us. However, with the greatest respect, I have to say that the speech by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) does not belong in that category. I do not know where most of his comments came from; I did not understand his speech at all.

Mr. Oliver Heald: That is your problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better.

Mr. McNulty: I raised three key points on Second Reading—to which some Opposition Members responded productively and positively in Committee—regarding the scrutiny functions of the GLA, the inclusivity of the mayor in the assembly and the relationship between the two, and what I called on Second Reading the architecture of governance in London. I make no apologies for starting with that issue. It has not been addressed in the House—although the Committee sought to consider the matter.
There is a fundamental flaw in much of the approach from the Opposition parties in their reasoned amendments: their belief that more than one proposal is on the table, and that more than one proposal for London was in our manifesto. There was not. There was one. It was, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir. N. Fowler) called it, a proposal for a system of government. That is exactly what was in our manifesto, and it will be tested in the full light of more fleshed-out details when the White Paper is issued next March.
We cannot issue a White Paper that says perhaps this, perhaps that, perhaps the other; one that fully takes into account the three, four or five permutations and all their subsequent administrative consequences, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister, and then say to people, "Here is a whole list of things on which to vote in the May referendum." We are offering an interlocking system of governance for London. As my hon. Friend the


Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, it includes the relationship between the boroughs, the GLA, the mayor and central Government.
As I said on Second Reading, there is a job to be done by all London Members, and by everyone in the Chamber who is concerned for the governance of London, in working out how the four key elements interlock. If the White Paper starts to address that in March, the argument in the reasoned amendments—that our proposal is flawed because we are offering two proposals rolled into one, when we should be offering two proposals and two questions—falls. We are offering one interlocking, overarching view of the map, if one likes, of governance for London.
As an ex-leader of a Labour group, I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that we shall fight tooth and nail in Harrow, with colleagues, if the assembly wants an inch of powers that properly and rightly belong at borough level. That would be the concerted view and voice of every single Labour council leader in London, whether in power or opposition. It is not a mea culpa or some Pauline conversion. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North was entirely right that, 11 years on, lessons have been learned, and what is now with the boroughs by and large stays with them. This is, perhaps, offensive to some Opposition Members, but it is subsidiarity writ large. At that end much of it is tied up.
A consequence of the autocratic abolition of the GLC is that, in terms of that end of London government, it has probably sorted things out, and many of the powers that should be at borough level are there and should stay there. All that we are doing is putting in place the second and crucial element—democratisation, instead of all the strategic powers and services in quangos.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Green Paper has no fewer than 10 points under which powers will be taken away from the boroughs and given to the authority?

Mr. McNulty: That is entirely a matter for debate. Equally, any number of the 61 questions can, by implication, give further powers back to the boroughs. "You pay your money and take your choice." That is the whole purpose of a consultation paper. Whatever happens on Third Reading or in another place—not necessarily in terms of electoral convention or the other matters suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—it behoves everyone in the House to take the White Paper very seriously so that we, collectively, can come up with a proper form of strategic governance for London.

Mr. Pickles: Do I take it then that the hon. Gentleman's bold declaration to fight tooth and nail for borough power lasted exactly five minutes, until my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that powers will be lost? What is happening? Why does not the hon. Gentleman stand up for his borough?

Mr. McNulty: When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar intervened during my speech on Second Reading, I said:
I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed that intervention. I will not give way to him again if that is the best that he can do."— [Official Report, 10 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 617.]
I repeat that now. I thought that I responded to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) in a very reasoned fashion. What the hon. Gentleman just said was entirely unnecessary.
When I first rose to speak, I almost felt like declaring myself as Tony McNulty, the Member for Harrow, East, vocal wing of the terracotta army. The notion that somehow all London's Members of Parliament are scurrying away and dare not be associated with the proposal is abject nonsense. We can all play—I wish that all sides would refrain from it—the silly little game that says because only three Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber, they cannot be taking this seriously, or because only three Back Benchers from London are in the Chamber, they cannot be taking this seriously. That is childish, wholly unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate.
In the short time available, I shall concentrate on the points that I raised on Second Reading. Some of them at least were developed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and that is to his credit. One of the key issues was inclusivity. The hon. Gentleman laid out far better than I did, especially on the second day of consideration in Committee, how we need to get to grips with whatever electoral arrangements we get for the mayor and the assembly. We have to get to grips with a system that reflects as far as possible the rich and varied communities that we have in London. However, there are two small points on which I take issue with the hon. Gentleman.
First, although most borough boundaries might be artificial, Harrow's is not. Harrow is the oldest borough boundary in London, going way back to before the last reorganisation of local government. Secondly, I can see the hon. Gentleman—because he has tagged this often enough throughout the debate's inception—formulating boundary maps in his head when he talks about a little bit of Kent, a little bit of Surrey, and everything else, perhaps being natural communities. With the best will in the world, Middlesex is not. It runs from Twickenham to Tottenham and all stops in between, and quite how that unfolds I am not sure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. He is also making perfectly measured points.
My understanding has always been that Middlesex, which was a huge county—the whole of the county was lost in Greater London—most easily divides into north Middlesex and west Middlesex. We can debate the boundary, but most people describe the county as one or the other. If we use Middlesex as a whole and then look at what we do with it, we might make some progress.

Mr. McNulty: That is a fair point, as were the other points that the hon. Gentleman made. It is principally the responsibility of parties, rather than the Government, to reflect some equity balance in the diversity of London in terms of gender and ethnicity.
As a caution to the House, I shall repeat the point about the mayor and the assembly that I made on Second Reading. I do not want a mayor for the west end. I do not want a mayor who is essentially an elaborate figurehead and may as well work for the London tourist board. That brings me back to what I said about the relationship between the mayor, the assembly and the boroughs. Neither do I want—we have had to put up with this for so long in outer London in terms of London Labour politics—a mayor and assembly that will focus almost exclusively inwards, perhaps in what was the old Inner London education authority area, or the old Inner London area. I am not by any means making a subversive plea for borough assemblymen, but if the assembly is to be inclusive, it must be inclusive in terms of the strategic needs, desires and wants of inner and outer London. It must reflect the needs and concerns of east London, inner and outer, versus west London; and north versus south. It must celebrate at the strategic level the richness and specific concerns that we have at the different levels.
It is absolutely right to have only one question. If, in terms of relationships and the electoral system, we get something that reflects the diversity and inclusivity that I have spoken about, and if we define—this is more a role for the White Paper in March—the strategic functions of the assembly—if there are to be any, as I hope that there are—the House will have done London a really good turn and a real favour by giving us back democratic government.
It is entirely wrong for hon. Members, whether Labour or Conservative, to talk about this being an American model that will not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) went through the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. He referred selectively to aspects that he chose to mention and he did the same with me. I said that the mayor and the assembly would not be a recipe for conflict and that the mayor, vested with powers relating to the assembly, would not necessarily be a recipe for corruption. I said that, just because people say that, it does not make it true. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East did in his speech was to say, simply, that my view was wrong, and that it was wrong because it was wrong, and because of the American model.
We are fundamentally not offering an American model. We are offering a brand new model for London. It is not enough to say, like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), that a mayor is alien to our culture. That is not a substantive enough analysis.
On Second Reading we were told, principally by the Liberal Democrats, that we were scared to put this proposal forward. They asked us for a bit of radicalism. I say now as I said then, this is the radical option. This is so radical and so new that I believe that it will excite the people of London into a higher turnout at the referendum.
With the indulgence of the boroughs and the House, if we get our act together and the relationships right—I accept that that is the key—there will be exciting times ahead for the governance of London. I hope that both sides of the House, especially Opposition Members, will take note of what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. When he has lost all his arguments in this place and a question appears on a

ballot paper, the hon Gentleman has committed his party to voting yes. That is in the interests of London. Like my colleagues, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I apologise for the fact that I shall be unable to remain in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) as I have a meeting elsewhere. However, I shall take care to read those speeches tomorrow.
I shall not respond to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in the terms in which he patronised my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles).

Mr. Pickles: I have been patronised in much better terms.

Mr. Lansley: Perhaps I should do so then. I shall just say that I thought that the objective on Third Reading, especially when there was a reasoned amendment, was to speak to that amendment and to respond to the debates that took place in Committee. I do not believe that it is the place to rehearse the arguments presented on Second Reading. I shall address myself to what was said in Committee and to the reasoned amendment.
The starting point from which I approached the amendments in Committee was that we were being asked to pursue a pre-legislative referendum. The aim of such a referendum, as the Minister has agreed on more than one occasion, is not to bind the House of Commons but to provide advice. Although the advice is not binding on the House, the Government see themselves as, in some sense, bound by it. There is a perverse element to a pre-legislative referendum that offers advice to the Government about how they should proceed with their policy while, at the same time, the Government—this is the essential point—are seeking not to provide the electorate of London with an opportunity to advise them. They are saying, "Here it is. Take it or leave it." In what will become the oft-repeated words of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), they are simply saying, "Let us marshall the terracotta army, muttering that it is in the manifesto, and march it all through." The electorate of London have to accept that, whether they like it or not.
What we have learned from the research of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is that that will be true for the Labour party in London, whether it likes it or not. The Labour party is emulating Henry Ford and saying, "You can have any car you like as long as it is black. You can have any form of democracy you want in London, as long as it is the democracy that the Labour party wants, not what the people of London are willing to vote for." That is the heart of the problem.
We are being asked to support an unamended Bill. There were ample opportunities in Committee for the Government to amend the Bill in order to serve the purpose for which a pre-legislative referendum should be designed—that is, to provide maximum opportunity for those being consulted to express their views on the choices available. They should be offered not the minimum number of options, but the maximum number of options and that comes down to two questions.
I was interested in the issue of responses to consultation. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) stumbled happily into commending to us a 10 per cent. response rate where the Minister managed to achieve a magnificent 0.02 per cent. response rate—he is happy with that. It is one tenth of the response rate achieved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment and was consulting about London.
It is interesting that, at that time, as the Minister made clear in Committee, there were some people who wanted a strategic authority for London. There is no dispute about that because there have always been some people who want that. The Labour party was consistent in its desire to retain the Greater London council and then, after its abolition, to recreate it in some amended form.
On Second Reading, the Minister for Transport in London told us that, although the analysis had not been completed at that time, 10 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation document wanted a different question. There were 61 questions in the consultation document, but not one of them said, "How would you like to be consulted about the governance of London?" They were not asked about the form of the question, but 10 per cent. ignored the 61 questions they were asked and offered a different view. The view that they were expressing is that which was expressed, rightly, in Committee and which has been supported by argument, which is that the people of London should be allowed to have more than one question.
It behoves us to wonder what the Government are frightened of. I think that, far from it being workable only if there is an integrated or holistic package—or whatever adjective one chooses to use—it is possible to have a different structure of government for London. It is possible to have a directly elected mayor and to have an assembly that is drawn from the boroughs. That is at the heart of the argument that has been presented by Opposition Members on more than one occasion, most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In Committee, he made it clear more than once—it has been reflected in our debates but, unhappily, not in the manner in which the Government are proceeding—that London is a city of many communities and that it is of the essence that we should seek a structure of government that reflects that.

Ms Buck: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the issue of the assembly of the boroughs would be the third question?

Mr. Lansley: I am happy to deal with that. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made clear, and as I attempted to explain to the Minister during an intervention, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it is possible that, within the structure of two questions, people could say whether they want a directly elected mayor and whether they want a directly elected assembly. It is clear that, if people choose to have representatives from the boroughs, by extension, they are looking for an indirectly elected assembly.
Ministers are afraid that such a package would be rejected. They fear that, if they separated the two propositions by asking two questions, they would not get the answer that they seek. It seems to me that the desire of Ministers to have their own way transcends their desire to do what is best for London, and that is much to be regretted.
I shall mention one or two subjects that came up in Committee that have reflected ill on the Government's argument, or lack of argument, in support of the Bill. Ministers should reflect further on how they approach certain issues, particularly the representation of the boroughs in the assembly. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North referred to creative tension. The principal creative tension at the heart of the governance of London is the tension that will naturally arise in so large a city—in a sense, it is a number of cities—between the localities and the city as a whole. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to talk about creative tension between the assembly and the mayor, but that is an irrelevance. Creative tension in London will come from the mesh that will entwine the strategic overview of the mayor and the authority with the creativity expressed by localities. If we put the creative tension outside the authority, we shall ignore the essential question of how to proceed with the governance of London.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East said that additional powers have been devolved to, and will be retained by, the boroughs. It is illogical for him to talk about the benefits of subsidiarity, given these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South mentioned 10 powers, but there may be more. It did not take me more than a minute or two to discover that some of the powers of the boroughs will not necessarily be taken away. I shall give just one example, which will resonate with my hon. Friends and with people outside the House.
The Government have not said precisely what is proposed for planning and land use: that is the problem. One of the options in the consultation paper is that the authority would be responsible for a structure plan, and would have the power to ensure that local authorities reflected that strategic plan in their own planning documents. I am sure that the Minister will say that the power of development control has not shifted out of the hands of the London boroughs, but in fact the balance of power in relation to land use and development control in London as a whole will shift dramatically from the boroughs to a higher-level body that will be able to force boroughs to exercise their development control powers in a particular direction.

Mr. McNulty: Rather than mind-read the consultation paper, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take my tuppence worth. For the past three years, I have been a member of the London planning advisory committee, which issues strategic advice that boroughs have to take into account when developing their structure plans. There is no reason why, once that committee is subsumed by the Greater London authority, that system should not continue to prevail. I would not advocate a separate Greater London development plan with statutory force as a structure plan for London. I offer the hon. Gentleman that comment by way of information.

Mr. Lansley: The analogy used in the consultation document is that of a county council, and the way in


which it exercises structure plan responsibility for its districts. The Minister may correct me, but I think that that has a more direct impact on the boroughs' subsequent development plans than the recommendations of the London planning advisory committee.
The Minister was at pains to remind me that we are discussing a consultation document. That brings me back to one of the principal issues. The timing of the consultation process that will lead to decisions has gone wrong. We are told that the White Paper will be presented shortly before the referendum in the spring.

Mr. Raynsford: Six weeks before.

Mr. Lansley: A draft Bill will not be presented. At the same time, the boroughs will have to make decisions, and campaigns will have to be fought. It is undesirable for the question of the governance of London to be wrapped up in those political considerations. Labour Members have been at pains to say that there are differences between a strategic overview and borough considerations, yet they are perfectly happy that borough considerations and strategic questions about the longer-term governance of London should be pushed into one campaign. They do not want them to be separated for reasons of convenience, and because they want to pursue their manifesto commitments and to save £2 million to £3 million. Democracy has a higher price than that.
The proposals should be published and should be consulted on separately. We should know the views of the people of London, and not necessarily on a partisan basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, there is a degree of cross-party agreement on some of the issues, such as the proposal for a directly elected mayor.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is moving ground.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister is telling me that I am moving ground.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister should not be telling the hon. Gentleman what to do now. He should wait until he winds up the debate.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister should know, because I referred to this on Second Reading, that, before the election, I published a pamphlet showing that I was in favour of directly elected mayors. I have not changed my view on that subject.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the manifesto of the Conservative party in London—I accept that he was not a London candidate—specifically opposed the Labour party's proposal for an elected mayor?

Mr. Lansley: The Minister is right to remind me that I was not a London candidate. However, I read that document, and, as I recall, it was opposed to the Labour party's proposals for an elected mayor and an authority. The Minister is at pains to say that this is an integrated package. At that time, it was reasonable for us to place emphasis on the question whether the Labour party wanted to recreate an authority, such as the Greater

London council. Our proposal is not the same as the Labour party's proposal, so the Conservative party's view is perfectly reasonable.
The debate in Committee showed the undesirability of the wholesale discretion that the Bill gives the Secretary of State to determine the electoral format for the assembly. The Minister uses the term "citywide", because it is inconvenient for him to recognise the reality. This authority may be the first of a number of regional authorities. Should it be established, it will no doubt be represented as a precedent for regional government. Constitutionally, it is highly undesirable for the electoral system for a regional assembly to be constructed on the basis of such a precedent, because it enables the Local Government Commission to operate under the direction and at the discretion of Ministers, without reference to the House.
A number of issues were raised in Committee. At their core is the question whether the electorate of London should be given the opportunity, which is clearly available, to respond to two questions. I support the reasoned amendment.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I want first to address the misrepresentation of the position of the Greater London Labour party by Conservative Members. As has been reported, we have had within the Greater London Labour party a full debate on the Green Paper and Labour's proposals for an elected mayor and an elected assembly. We have more than 65,000 party members in Greater London, nine of the 10 Members of the European Parliament, 57 of the 74 Members of Parliament and the majority of London boroughs, so it would be a huge surprise if there was not a variety of views. Conservative Members have, however, focused on a few individuals who have challenged the proposals in the Green Paper.
The consultative conference that I chaired on 12 October has been mentioned frequently by Conservative Members. I am not sure whether I am expected to be flattered or offended by the remark, often quoted by Conservative Members, that I manipulated the conference. I am happy to claim that I chaired the conference effectively—certainly to the satisfaction of the vast majority of those who attended. There were more than 300 delegates, including many Labour Members. The results of that consultation—

Mr. Ottaway: I should hate the House to be misled and to be left with the impression that Conservative Members are saying that the hon. Gentleman manipulated the meeting. It was a member of the Greater London Labour party executive who used the word "manipulated".

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I said that claims that I manipulated the meeting were quoted by Conservative Members. That is not my recollection of the conference, and it is not the recollection of many who were there.
The results of the consultative conference were discussed by the executive of the Greater London Labour party, which wholly supported the way forward being proposed by the Government—that is, an elected mayor balanced by an elected assembly. I repeat that the number of Labour submissions in opposition to the proposals was


only 16 out of the thousands of submissions by councillors, the hundreds of submissions by Labour party branches and the 74 submissions from constituencies. In those terms, 16 is a minuscule number. Clearly, there is overwhelming support within the Greater London Labour party for the proposals.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said, a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly are what we promised at the general election. Londoners obviously support that, as demonstrated by our success within the region. They can demonstrate that support again next May, by voting yes overwhelmingly in the referendum.
I now repeat the suggestion that I made in the closing stages of the Second Reading debate on 10 November. I suggest that once we have agreed that we shall have an elected mayor and an elected assembly, we shall need to look for a home for both. I suggest that for several reasons, east London would be wholly appropriate.
First, it is clear to anyone living in the capital that the centre of gravity has been moving east for years; the docklands area demonstrates that. Secondly, the Thames gateway is the gateway to Europe, and placing the centre of local government there would acknowledge that fact. Thirdly, it would be a gesture to the excluded communities of east London for them to be the home for new London politics. It would also symbolise the regeneration of the area, not only after the closure of the docks, but after the South Quay bombing. For too long, the east end has been the home of poverty, deprivation and unemployment, as demonstrated by the flirtation with the far right.

Mr. Pickles: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the east end would be a good place to locate the building for the mayor and the assembly. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) about the powers that would be exercised by the strategic authority in that building? Would he fight tooth and nail to ensure that no powers were taken away from the boroughs?

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I have never been a local authority representative, but I am sure that local authorities will be more than able to defend their corner when the new strategic authority is created.
Siting the home of the new centre of regional government in the east end would be wholly consistent with the Government's objective of demonstrating that this is a new beginning. The Prime Minister clearly demonstrated that, by siting the Anglo-French conference at Canary Wharf. This is about new Britain, about new London and about a new start for our capital city. I shall submit my proposal to the Minister in due course. I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of Back Benchers still wish to speak. As hon. Members know, there will be winding-up speeches, so brief speeches, such as the one by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), would be helpful.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Ministers must be a little wistful about imposing a gagging order on their Back-Bench colleagues in Committee. We might not otherwise have had such prolix contributions on Third Reading. Ministers would normally expect by now to be home in their Departments for tea. They must be getting a little sad as they realise that tea trolley time has gone and that the bone china cups have rattled down the corridor while the debate here has dragged on.
The contributions from Labour Members today have been most revealing. First, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) spoke of dynamic tension between the mayor and the elected assembly as if that was meritorious. The Minister argued most forcefully and convincingly that the governance of London needed leadership from the mayor. If, however, the mayor is locked in almost permanent conflict with an argumentative and difficult assembly, the proposal does not bode well for Londoners.
Secondly, we had the contribution by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He stated clearly that he thought that local authorities, such as his own in Harrow, would fight tooth and nail to preserve every inch of their power against the overweening ambitions—that was the implication of what he said—of the assembly. Once the assembly is elected—this is the force of the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N.
Fowler)—those ambitions will grow. If the assembly members want to demonstrate their effectiveness, they will arrogate to themselves more and more power. That bodes ill for the governance of London and makes any objective commentator wonder whether proposals of such far-reaching consequence should be considered for such a short period by the people of London.
The White Paper is to be produced on 23 March 1998 or thereabouts. The date of the referendum will be 7 May. Easter will come in the middle of April, and there will be the school holidays, the May day bank holiday and the Easter recess. There will be very little opportunity for even this House to give the White Paper proper consideration, let alone the people of London, who will be up to their ears in the arguments about the governance of their own boroughs, which is more important for them than the governance of London.
Before we grant the total power that the Bill will entail, there could well be a change of heart by the Government—perhaps between the publication of the White Paper and the enactment of the Bill that will give force to the proposals. The constituency branches of the Labour party seem very worried that the traditional system of a leader being chosen from their number will be done away with. That is a potential source of pressure on the Government, which could lead to changes between the publication of the White Paper and the Bill.
We would be most unwise to give a carte blanche single question to the electorate, without a paramount and totally plain explanation from the Government of how the assembly will be elected, how the mayor will be elected and how those two separate elections will be funded. That is particularly important for the election of the mayor. There is a real risk that his election could be bankrolled by a company. It is not beyond our imagination to see the immense potential for the corruption of the electoral


process if strict safeguards on expenditure are not written into the White Paper and, more important, enacted in the legislation.
That is why the Opposition are right to insist on two questions. Having two questions would not invalidate the Government's proposals for an authority with the twin components of mayor and assembly; it would provide a means of validating the merits of each. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister, in a telling conclusion to his speech, said that they could envisage the assembly working perfectly well without a directly elected mayor, as a normal democratic institution, drawing its leader from its ranks.
If democracy in London is to be better served rather than prejudiced by the proposals, it is crucial that the boroughs have their voice. I apologise for being a little parochial, but the following example makes my point. Mr. Evans, the local MEP for my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), has just said that he is wholly against the fifth terminal for Heathrow and against the abolition of duty free sales at the airport and on airlines for European flights. Those proposals would gravely damage employment in Hillingdon. Without a directly elected representative—or an indirectly elected one in the form of the leader of a borough, as Conservative Front-Bench Members have argued—particular local interests will not be served on the assembly.
Transport is a potential area of competence for the assembly and the mayor. Air transport and the related infrastructure of rail connections, high-speed links and roads are crucial issues for my borough. Our concerns must be effectively articulated in the new assembly. The chances are that they will not be unless we have a representative for Hillingdon. That representative would also have to stand up for the green belt, because there must be a balance between the transport imperatives that are crucial for the economy of our borough, for west London and for the country, and the environmental interests of local residents, which are already imperilled by the ever-increasing demands of Labour authorities to build on open space, and occasionally on green-belt land, as we have seen in Hillingdon.
The electors of London will need to know that the new authority will safeguard local interests better than the current system. If it will not, they would serve their local interests and the interests of London by rejecting the Government's proposals.

Ms Joan Ryan: I speak not as the Lobby fodder that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred to, but as the Member of Parliament for a London constituency—Enfield, North. I speak on behalf of the people of Enfield, North, who voted for our manifesto in considerable numbers. I have consulted them formally and informally about the proposals on many occasions. I am pleased to report that the proposals for a directly elected mayor and assembly in one package have overwhelming support.
There are good reasons to rehearse the arguments put on Second Reading. The Conservatives seem to oppose a democratic voice for London. When they abolished the Greater London council, they made no attempt to reform

it. There have been no proposals in the 11 years since then to redress the balance and do something about the democratic deficit in London. They are aware of the tremendous support for the Government's proposals in London, so they find themselves in difficulty. Instead of opposing the proposals wholesale, which I believe to be their true position, they argue about the assembly.
Londoners want and need a democratic voice for the capital, elected by the people to speak up for us and battle on our behalf for inward investment for jobs and for public money to tackle the division between rich and poor, to defend and promote the interests of Londoners and to ensure that London remains a world-class capital.
The capital currently has no voice. We suffer from a lack of co-ordination, which is more than evident on transport issues. We suffer from a lack of strategic planning, which is evident in the King's Cross development. We suffer from a lack of openness, accountability and democracy, which is evident in the situation with the Metropolitan police. The Labour Government inherited a mess from the previous Conservative Government. We have had 18 years of experiments and change, including complete disasters such as the poll tax. That has weakened local services and demoralised many local councillors.
No wonder talented people shy away from standing for election to their local council. No wonder 80 per cent. of councillors are over 45, one third are retired and only one in four are women. No wonder only 31 per cent. of the electorate bothered to vote in the 1994 local elections. We need democratic renewal. We want change for local government that will bring better public services and stronger local democracy.
It is not healthy for everything to be run from Whitehall. That places too much power in the hands of too few people. The new millennium demands a new approach. Nowhere is that more true than in London. The capital has 12 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population. Its gross domestic product is greater than that of Singapore, Thailand or Hong Kong. Its economy is bigger than those of many European countries, including Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg. It accounts for 19 per cent. of United Kingdom GDP. More than 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom's businesses and financial services are located in London. In the rest of the UK, 4.1 million workers depend on producing goods and services that are sold in London.
Of course, with all that, we have our problems. Of the country's most deprived wards, 14 per cent. are in London. At the local elections for London in 1994, more than one in six people in London were in receipt of income support. London has the highest level of serious crime and one of the highest rates of reported drug misuse in the country. Infant mortality rates in deprived inner London are twice as high as those in some outer boroughs. We need a Greater London authority and an elected mayor. This is an idea whose time has come.
Towns and cities compete today in a way that they did not a generation ago. In Britain, Manchester competes with London for millennium cash. In Europe, Liverpool


competes with cities in Spain and Germany. In the global economy, we compete with every other country to attract investment and production.

Mr. John Randall: I am trying to work out the relevance of the geography lesson to the referendum. Perhaps the hon. Lady can enlighten me.

Ms Ryan: All the points are extremely relevant. The hon. Gentleman's Conservative Government never addressed any of the issues.
In this world of competitive localities, we need a strong voice for London; someone to promote the area and fight on our behalf for the investment and public resources that we need. It is probably true that nobody really knows the town clerk and that few know the leader of their local council—although I am sure that there are some notable exceptions. An elected mayor would have a high public profile and more political weight. A mayor would be better able to provide the community leadership that London needs.
We cannot leave our local authorities, the police or the public sector to act alone. To reduce crime and pollution and to make our economy grow, we need an elected authority for London; we need a mayor. We need a powerful voice. The democratic deficit must be addressed. The people of London support the package that the Government are putting forward. On 7 May, there will be a massive yes vote for the proposals. We look forward to that.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the concession which I believe the Minister made when he said that he had no objection in principle to more than one question on the ballot paper. That is interesting and makes it even more important that, in the other place, the issue of questions on the ballot paper is considered closely. Perhaps we can now engage in a sensible dialogue. Perhaps the Government have listened to the views of 16 of the 30 local Labour parties in London—the ones who responded to the Government's Green Paper—and the majority of Trades Union Congress councils in London.
For each step forward, we take a step backward. We have taken a step backward on whether the authority constitutes regional government for London. As a matter of urgency, the Government must clarify whether they are talking about regional, citywide or local government.
What electoral system would we favour for the government of London? I do not have time to go into detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described certain general principles such as fairness and natural constituencies. I would certainly like there to be natural constituencies. Perhaps one in my neck of the woods would comprise all the south-west London constituencies. I say that not just because most of them are represented by Liberal Democrats. I used to be a councillor in Hackney. Another natural constituency would include Hackney, Islington and neighbouring constituencies in that inner-city area. The Liberal Democrats support five or six variable-size, multi-member constituencies. There might be a need to

top that up with some additional members, to ensure overall proportionality. If the two general principles apply, government for London will receive the backing of Londoners.
Such legitimacy is needed, but I am afraid that our debates have not provided it. I cannot accept that Labour Members have given the Bill a vote of confidence. They have taken a vow of silence. The omerta that we are witnessing among Government Back Benchers has everything to do with baseball bat-wielding Whips and nothing to do with acquiescence and agreement with the Government's proposals, especially for a London mayor.

Mr. McNulty: And a cattle prod.

Mr. Brake: Yes, even cattle prods.
It is not too late for the Government to listen to Londoners' views and swallow their pride, in taking on board a second question. The Government's pride is at stake. I hope that they will grasp the opportunity to introduce a second question.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: On 23 March, the Government will publish their proposals for the reform of London government, which will leave us just six short weeks in which to consider them. We accept that there is a case for reform, but the striking feature of the previous three days' debates has been the misplaced, cosy nostalgia among Labour Members—and to a degree among Liberal Democrats—for that bureaucratic, blundering, inefficient organisation known as the Greater London council.
Labour Members have described the GLC as a kind of genial godfather, doing good deeds throughout its life for the benefit of Londoners. Their memories are short. London is a young city. The average age of its people is less than the national average. Eleven years on, memories have started to fade.
We make no apology for having abolished the GLC. We believe that that abolition has strengthened London's local government. Few want to return to the days of the GLC. The few who do sit on the Government Benches— but they have not understood their orders. They have not read the Green Paper, which makes it clear that the proposed body is not a return to the GLC. It is not a return, because, in their hearts, members of the Labour party agree with us that the GLC had to go.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister shakes his head. I shall take it from that that he wanted the GLC to remain. If he really meant it, he would be reviving the GLC in this Parliament—but he is not.
The world has moved on since 1986, and we accept the case for a mayor for London—a voice for Londoners, someone to represent them in central Government and to speak for London on the international stage. However, given what we have seen of the Government's plans so far, it is important to recognise that the job will be more about influence than about executive power. That is right for what will be a strategic authority.
A second striking feature of the debates has been the Government Back Benchers' wish lists of powers that they hope the new mayor will have. Labour Back Benchers have called for the mayor to have all the old powers of the GLC, plus the powers to run all London's transport, health and education services single-handedly.

Mr. McNulty: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman was not present for most of the debates on Second Reading and in Committee. If he had been, he would have heard such calls. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ottaway: The mayor will not have such powers, and it is an illusion to think so. If for a moment we thought that London's mayor would have such powers, our views on the assembly, whose job it will be to hold him to account, might be very different.
It is of great concern to the Opposition that, under the terms of the question in the schedule, the die has been cast on the nature of the assembly. The proposed structure of the directly elected assembly is flawed, and our amendments have consistently made that point. The Bill is not just about a ballot on the future of London: it deals with the electoral arrangements for the assembly.
Tellingly, in the Minister's letter to the editor of The Times, he made it clear that an assemblyman would not be expected to fight for his or her own patch. He said that with such pride and confidence that it rang alarm bells in all of us who are concerned about the democratic process. When I challenged him to admit that that meant that he would sever the constituency link and have an assembly elected by proportional representation, he replied that that would not necessarily be the case. He is nodding to confirm that.
Thus, the situation gets worse. We may have people elected from constituencies, but they will not be allowed to fight for their patches. We know that independent thought by Labour Back Benchers is banned in the House, but it seems that the disease is spreading. Independent thought will not be allowed in any other house. We might have thought that the thought police did not have much work left to do, but they will have to tighten their grip.
The Government's opinions, as expressed in our debates on the Bill, have been deeply insulting to London's local government. We have proposed that the members of the assembly should be the borough leaders. That is a reasonable proposal, which we have put forward without frills. In that way, the thinking for London would come from the bottom up and not from the top down. The assembly would be a bridge between the mayor and the boroughs.
All the Minister can say in reply is that that would not be an adequate alternative. Frankly, I thought that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) did a better job of justifying what it subsequently turned out he does not believe—

Mr. McNulty: I did not say that.

Mr. Ottaway: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman's contribution in a moment, but he gave a better explanation than we heard from the Minister.
The Green Paper is riddled with proposals for the authority to implement Government strategy. There is no suggestion that the assembly will implement borough strategy or thinking. There is no suggestion that the boroughs will have anything more than an informal and occasional consultative role. There is no suggestion that the views of Londoners will be paramount in the assembly's thinking. The boroughs' role in the authority will be minimal.
I thought that the hon. Member for Harrow, East made an interesting speech, but he should realise that Harrow council's power will be diminished. He will have a lot of fighting to do to live up to his words tonight. It will cost him personal credibility in his party, and we will watch him and hold him to account for his words.
The Bill will not be published before the referendum. We are also concerned that the Government will not even publish the White Paper until 10 months after the election. Why have the Scottish and Welsh White Papers been published within three months of the election? Why will the Welsh Bill be published within seven months? If the government of Wales can be reorganised in seven months, why cannot the Government draw up a draft Bill for a strategic authority in 10 months?

Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has forgotten that we have published a Green Paper to consult people, and we are allowing time for their responses to be considered.

Mr. Ottaway: Sixty-one questions—that is one heck of a consultation document. Is the Minister saying that the proposals in his manifesto were not thought out before the election? How can a Bill be drafted for the future government of a whole country, such as Wales, in less time than it takes to produce a draft Bill for a strategic authority?
The Government will not even give an undertaking not to change the White Paper proposals in the Bill. They are saying to London, "We are not publishing the White Paper until just a few weeks before the referendum. We will give you hardly any time to digest it and ponder its consequences. We, the Labour party, will fight the referendum on the slogan, 'A Voice for London', and you may or may not get what you voted for." That is new Labour's version of "Blind Date", and this is the "Blind Date" Bill. People can choose, but they do not know what they will get. Londoners deserve better.
We want two questions, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said. We want Londoners to say yes or no to a mayor and yes or no to a directly elected assembly as currently proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out that a single take-it-or-leave-it question is inadequate.
One of the more amusing aspects of the Chancellor's statement yesterday was how many times his spin doctors had inserted the buzz word "fairness". He repeated it several times, but the Minister tonight—I listened carefully, because I thought I might be able to make the point—did not use the word once in his speech. He knows how unfair his proposals are. Above all, they are an insult to the enthusiasm that Londoners have displayed for reform of some kind.
The Minister has repeatedly made the point—somewhat smugly—that it is the votes that count. He knows that he has lost the argument on two questions in our debates, but he has enough Lobby fodder behind him to carry the day.
Does the Minister really have support for his policies? He emphatically argued that more than 50 per cent. of Londoners had voted for the Labour party manifesto proposals for London, until we pointed out that he did not get 50 per cent. of the vote. The majority of Londoners did not support his proposals.
I challenged the Minister to say that the 1.6 million Labour voters of May would turn out next May. His head, which normally bobs around genially, froze solid, because he was not sure that they would.
The Minister then claimed that the Association of London Government supports his proposals. We checked our records, and found that that is not true, either. At least half of London's boroughs want a two-question referendum.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the ALG has supported the Government's position, and that that is the evidence that the ALG has submitted? Perhaps he has not read it and if not, I suggest that he does.

Mr. Ottaway: I repeat what I said. At least half the boroughs represented on the ALG want a two-question referendum. That is the truth of the matter. The Minister does not have the support of the London boroughs for his opposition to a two-question referendum, which is the basis for our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Tony Colman: I have a copy, as has my hon. Friend the Minister, of the ALG's submission. It clearly states that the ALG welcomes the directly elected mayor and assembly for London. In the minutes— we seem to be keen on minutes tonight—the Labour group on the ALG, which is some 23 boroughs out of the 32, is recorded as totally in favour. It is also clearly minuted that the Conservatives, obviously whipped, are in favour only of the mayor, and the Liberal Democrats, obviously whipped, are in favour only of the assembly. That is the truth.

Mr. Ottaway: After that short speech, I will go through the list of the London boroughs that are in favour of a two-question referendum. I shall do it slowly, in case the hon. Gentleman wishes to write the names down and go round to Old Queen street and check them. The boroughs are Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Hackney, Harrow—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not like what he is hearing. The list continues with Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Bexley and Westminster.

Mr. Hill: Liberal Democrat and Tory boroughs.

Mr. Ottaway: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no thought is allowed in London other than the Labour party's? Is he saying that the only voice from the Association of London Government allowed to be heard

is that of the Labour party? That is a fine cry for democracy from Lewisham. If that is all there is to say, Lewisham deserves him.
When the Minister discovered that he had lost both arguments, he said that London's Labour party supported his proposals. Today we heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) quoting at length from the report of the London Labour meeting. He presented what he read as the latest revelation, but in fact it was the report that I quoted from on Monday.
We checked out the report on that famous meeting, and we found that people voted against the proposals by a ratio of 8:1, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) to prevent such a vote from being taken. He was trying to rewrite history.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the reports are a gross exaggeration. The only figure quoted is something like 8:1, but there were more than 300 delegates at the meeting. The vast majority of the people at that consultative seminar were wholly in agreement with the Government's policy, and the formal submission put forward by the Labour party in London was fully in support of the proposals.

Mr. Ottaway: How would the hon. Gentleman know, when he did not allow a vote to find out what the members present thought? He will have to discuss the matter with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).[Interruption.]He was there. The hon. Member for Harrow, East was there, too, and so was the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)—and here are the minutes. They say that London Labour rejected the mayor. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that he cannot even claim the support of his own party.
That catalogue of disaster would have deterred most Ministers and made them think again, but there was no remorse from those men and women. They plough on, regardless of public opinion, of the grass roots of their own party, of the views of the London boroughs, and of those of London itself. They do not deserve the support of the House, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): There can rarely have been a Third Reading so dominated by the Labour party. I do not refer exclusively to the contributions by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) all spoke with passion and conviction, and with information gleaned from listening to what the people of London are saying to them about the Government's proposals for a Greater London authority.
We were also privileged to hear paraded through the Chamber the unnamed thousands who make up the Greater London Labour party. They were paraded, in the main, by Members representing the Conservative party, and they joined us by means of representations made by those hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) even brought them in via the internet. That seemed to me to show just how


open the Labour party is. It publishes on the internet, available for all who wish to see it, the way in which debate is conducted within our party.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) began by saying that he and his party had held a consistent position on a government for London. I must point out that the position was consistent until 2 May. Before then, the Conservative party had campaigned assiduously and virulently against the idea of restoring a democratic voice for London, but after 2 May we saw it begin to make a move in our direction.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suffer from a desperate lack of argument and conviction. Again, the Labour party was strongly represented in the bulk of his speech, which was devoted to re-quoting what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said on Second Reading.
The right hon. Gentleman was not alone in dubbing my right hon. and hon. Friends "Lobby fodder". It was an insult levelled at my hon. Friends by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) as well.[Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield say, "Shame." Indeed it is shameful that the trust placed in my hon. Friends by the electorate in London should be so described.
In truth, in describing my hon. Friends as Lobby fodder, the right hon. Gentleman offers an insult not to them, but rather to the people of London who exercise their franchise in every election, be it local or general, with both information and conviction, in the realisation that the decisions they make are important.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said was correct—that, if anyone on the Labour Benches voted against the Bill, he or she would be debarred from further candidature within the Labour party?

Ms Jackson: I am delighted to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is totally incorrect. However, my point in raising the matter was to observe how the mighty are fallen, in that, in a debate that he believes to be important about the restoration of government for London, the right hon. Gentleman is reduced to quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.[Interruption.] There is another example of Conservative Members who are incapable of listening to the answers to the questions they pose.

Sir Norman Fowler: Answer the question.

Ms Jackson: As I began by saying, nothing can be further from the truth. My point, however, is that the right hon. Gentleman has no arguments to present for himself.[Interruption.] He says that I must be joking—but I assure him that, if I tell a joke, I invariably get a laugh; I do not need to come at it from such a sideways angle.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey repeated the points that he made in Committee. We have no argument with the concerns that he expressed. We, too, wish the process to be both fair and, as I said when he spoke to his amendments in Committee, inclusive.
We do not agree with the hon. Gentleman or with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that what we propose is regional government. We see it as a citywide government. However, we are very much in tune with the hon. Gentleman's perspective that London is infinite in its variety. That point was tellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North in an especially interesting contribution.
We see the GLA—the mayor and the assembly, if that is the will of the people of London—as inclusive, outward-reaching and outward-looking, and as wishing to acknowledge London as a city of an infinite variety of peoples and of interests, which is constantly expanding.
That is the way in which London must maintain its primacy as a great capital city. Its greatest treasure is indeed the people of London, who, despite what Conservative Members say, have a wider perspective of what constitutes London than just their own borough or interest.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) made a point that was also made in a different form by the hon. Member for Croydon, South. He argued that there had been no Labour Members present. The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that Labour Members had been forced to take a vow of silence.
However, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar then said that Labour Members had taken us down memory lane, pining for the Greater London council. Where did those mysterious voices come from that the hon. Gentleman heard? Perhaps they were indeed Disraeli, Gladstone and Churchill; they may have been trying to tell him something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East made the precise point—

Mr. Pickles: Would the Minister care to comment on a sedentary intervention made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to the effect that a vow of silence had been taken?

Ms Jackson: I understood that that remark about the vow of silence was made by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon, South.

Mr. Pickles: I heard the hon. Member for Streatham say it.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is hearing voices again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East defined in precise detail what we perceive as the way forward for the government of London. We are not concerned with some arcane argument. We want a democratic voice to be restored to London, but we want a new, modern form of local government—it is practical, it will achieve results and, as I have said, it will be inclusive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town gave the clinching argument in the face of attempts by Opposition Members throughout the debate to imply that there is a great schism between the Labour party in this House and the Greater London Labour party over the Government's proposals, when he stated that, out of


65,000 members in London, 1,867 branches, 57 Members of Parliament and a majority of London boroughs, only 16 voices oppose the Government's proposals.
In another informed, intelligent and interesting contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North pointed out that we are attempting to redress the democratic deficiency that has burdened London since the Conservative party took away its democratic rights when in government.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to a vow of silence, or that was my understanding, which he implied had been imposed on myself and my hon. Friends. He reiterated that there were constant calls from the supposedly silent voices for ever greater powers to be given to the Greater London authority. Opposition Members' contributions have been somewhat schizophrenic, but I am grateful for the detailed scrutiny that they afforded the Bill in Committee. I am also grateful for the strong endorsement given to the detail of our proposals at that stage.
Londoners want a strategic authority for this capital. They wanted one in 1986, and they want one now. They know that London needs democratic, citywide leadership, capable of tackling our decaying infrastructure and worsening air quality, taking on the task of regenerating the capital and tackling the growing division between rich and poor—a point made by more than one of my hon. Friends. Londoners know that, without that, we will have a continuation of the ad hoc and the absent, the mantra of the past 11 years—no one in charge, no one to blame.
This Government believe that London should be competing with the best in the world—a leader among world cities—and to do that, it needs leadership of its own. That is why we made our manifesto commitment and published extensive consultation proposals in July, and why so many individuals and organisations responded—hundreds of individuals and organisations, representing tens of thousands of Londoners. That is why people are already discussing who might represent London in elections to the authority some two years hence.
Simply publishing our consultation proposals has revitalised London politics. It has brought forth new optimism and a sense of possibility. People are now discussing how to deal with London's problems, how to meet the challenges we face and how they can work with the new authority and make a real difference. What a change from the pointless confrontation and powerless talking shops that predominated less than a year ago. That is a testament to the enthusiasm of all Londoners for what we are proposing.
Despite the best—a debatable choice of word—efforts of Opposition Members to suggest otherwise, this is neither a complex nor a controversial piece of legislation. We promised a referendum on our proposals for a new Greater London authority, to give the people of London the opportunity to vote yes or no to the creation of a new authority. That is what the Government promised, and what the Bill provides for.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise to the hon. Lady and to the

House for not making this point during the debate, but I was in a Select Committee. If the referendum is to be so consistent a part of our constitutional machinery from now on, does she not think that it would be prudent to have wider discussion of what should be the consistent features of a referendum, not least because those are variable in the Bill?

Ms Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman need never apologise to me. We are not discussing the possibility of the referendum becoming an implicit, intrinsic form of government for the future. He poses a hypothetical question. It is an interesting question, and I wish that I had more time to attempt to answer it.
However, it is particularly clear that we are debating the question that will be posed in a referendum. This is a specific Bill, for a referendum with a specific purpose. However hard Opposition Members have tried, they have significantly failed to present an alternative to the question or to the proposals that we have made in an attempt to restore a democratic voice to London and to Londoners.

Mr. Wilkinson: I wish that the hon. Lady would deal with this question. Even at this late stage of the discussion, can she give the House some guidelines as to whether the Government will impose limits on expenditure in any campaign for the London referendum, or is the sky the limit as far as bankrolling the election is concerned?

Ms Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have misunderstood his question, but we have made it abundantly clear that the cost of the referendum will be £3 million. Is he concerned about another area?

Mr. Wilkinson: The question is whether the no campaign, if one emerges, or the yes campaign, could spend any amount of money in securing the result they desire—a majority vote.

Ms Jackson: We have made it abundantly clear that there will be no Government money for either a no or a yes campaign. We have not proposed putting a limit on the funding, but in the light of our concerns about expenditure for other campaigns, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, and I see no reason why we should not consider it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady deal with the point to which she almost alluded? What is the Government's objection to the two questions, as formulated by her colleague and put to the Greater London Labour party—a separate question for an elected mayor, and one for an elected assembly?

Ms Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction made abundantly clear in a different context, the two questions proposed would not of themselves produce the form of government that we made a clear manifesto commitment to introduce to London.
One could indeed have the question, "Do you want a directly elected mayor?" and the question, "Do you want a directly elected assembly?" It would be entirely


open to the electorate to vote yes or no to either or both. Our standpoint and what our manifesto made abundantly clear is that we are committed to a form of governance for London that comprises a mayor and an assembly.
The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members have gone round and round in circles trying to find a form of words. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction said, the two questions could become three, the three could become six, the six nine, ad infinitum. As my hon. Friend said, it would be grossly irresponsible for a Government to propose a form of questioning that was not clear and concise, and that could not deliver a practical form of government.
We understand the position of those who advocate more than one question; but they cannot come up with a question that is clear, unambiguous and capable of arriving at a clear mandate and not resulting in unworkable options. We offer a clear proposition to the people of London, based on fully worked-out proposals in a White Paper.
The people of London will have a clear, unambiguous choice. If they vote yes, we will introduce legislation to implement our proposals. If they vote no, we will know that they do not want what we propose. It is as simple, open, clear and concise as that.
I hope that, despite the entreaties of Opposition Members, the other place will give the Bill a swift passage. That will be needed to enable us to proceed with the referendum as planned. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Londoners have already waited far too long—11 long years. We hope that the other place will not take any steps that will make them have to wait any longer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 324.

Division No. 99]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burstow, Paul


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Cable, Dr Vincent


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baker, Norman
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Cotter, Brian


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brake, Tom
Duncan, Alan


Brand, Dr Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Breed, Colin
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flight, Howard


Burnett, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric





Foster, Don (Bath)
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Prior, David


Gorrie, Donald
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Rendel, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Hancock, Mike
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harris, Dr Evan
St Aubyn, Nick


Harvey, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heald, Oliver
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Horam, John
Soames, Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard
Streeter, Gary


Johnson Smith,
Stunell, Andrew


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Syms, Robert


Keetch, Paul
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tredinnick, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyler, Paul


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Wallace, James


Letwin, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wardle, Charles


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Webb, Steve


Loughton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Wilkinson, John


MacKay, Andrew
Willetts, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Willis, Phil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Major, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Yeo, Tim


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. James Cran and Mr. Stephen Day.


Moore, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atherton, Ms Candy
Berry, Roger






Best, Harold
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blackman, Liz
Ennis, Jeff


Blizzard, Bob
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Galbraith, Sam


Buck, Ms Karen
Galloway, George


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Casale, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Church, Ms Judith
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda
Healey, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Iain
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Denham, John



Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Drown, Ms Julia
Kidney, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Edwards, Huw
Kingham, Ms Tess





Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rooker, Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin


McFall, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNulty, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Moran, Ms Margaret
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Touhig, Don


O'Hara, Eddie
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Truswell, Paul


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pendry, Tom
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Wise, Audrey


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wood, Mike






Worthington, Tony
Wyatt, Derek


Wray, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Orders of the Day — BlOTECHNOLOGICAL INVENTIONS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10510/97, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; and supports the Government's view that this Directive could harmonise and clarify national laws on the patenting of biotechnological inventions, so reducing the current uncertainty which exists in this area of law in Europe which has the potential to act as a deterrent in this industry.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 7

APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 5, line 14, at end insert—

'(4) In section 33(4) of the Immigration Act 1971, after "1993" there shall be inserted "or section 7 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997".'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are now concluding Parliament's examination of the Bill. I am grateful for the thorough, constructive and helpful approach that Opposition Front Benchers and others have displayed, here and in Committee. The desire of all is to ensure that this is a good and effective Bill.
The amendments to the Bill are few in number. To a considerable extent, that is a reflection of the detailed and worthwhile scrutiny that the Bill was given in another place. Everyone recognises that it is a necessary Bill. Its general content has been governed by the terms of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Chahal. It is about creating the right balance between the liberty of the individual and the safety of the state.
In the circumstances, I do not propose to speak at length; however, I shall take the opportunity to refer to the amendments that the House made to the Bill and explain why the right of appeal from the commission that has been created is more limited than the Opposition have not unreasonably, advocated. Clause 7 now provides an avenue of appeal from the immigration appeals commission to the Court of Appeal on a question of law. Before the clause was added to the Bill, there was no right of appeal from a decision of the commission for either party to the appeal.
The inclusion of that avenue of appeal on a point of law mirrors the existing arrangements for such a right of appeal in respect of decisions of the immigration appeal tribunal. It is not an appeal on the facts. As I explained in Committee, it will be more satisfactory for points of law to be dealt with on appeal to the Court of Appeal rather than by way of judicial review to the divisional court and then to the Court of Appeal.
We have not introduced a more general right of appeal from the commission on the facts for either the appellant or the Secretary of State. We take seriously the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about the importance of protecting the interests of national security in the small number of difficult cases where there will, in future, be a right of appeal to the commission. It is because we share those concerns and because the European Court of Human Rights accepts that these cases raise particular difficulties that we are proposing procedures that will restrict the rights of appellants.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) helpfully referred to the importance of having
a swift but fair appeal, independent of the Home Secretary".— [Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1064.]
That is a succinct explanation of what we are all trying to achieve in the Bill. The introduction of a right of appeal to an independent commission in these cases means that the commission will be in a position to overturn decisions made personally by the Secretary of State. Of course, any such decisions taken by the commission will be unwelcome to the Secretary of State, but it is an essential aspect of complying with the Chahal judgment that the commission should be able to take decisions, rather than only make non-binding recommendations in the manner of the three advisers who formerly acted in such cases. The commission will be well aware of the significance of its decisions, whether those decisions support the Secretary of State's decision, or otherwise.
Although the Bill establishing the commission has not quite finished its parliamentary progress, I shall take this opportunity to inform the House about an important development. Schedule 1 to the Bill makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to appoint a chairman from among the members of the commission, one of whom must hold or have held high judicial office. I am pleased to inform the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has decided to appoint Mr. Justice Potts, a High Court judge since 1986, as chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when it is established. Mr. Justice Potts has widespread experience of immigration cases, was a presiding judge of the northeastern circuit from 1988 to 1991 and was vice-chairman of the Parole Board between 1992 and 1996. Other appointments to the commission will be made by the Lord Chancellor following Royal Assent.
The Bill will help to ensure that our procedures for dealing, within the immigration context, with those alleged to be terrorists meet accepted standards of fairness. It is a comparatively straightforward matter to accord decent civil rights treatment to decent reasonable people. It is much more difficult to give the same sort of treatment to those who behave in ways that are abhorrent to most people. It is, however, a mark of a civilised and civil society that we accept the need to do so. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. James Clappison: I intend to make only brief remarks, as this has not been a contentious piece of legislation; but there are one or two points I must make. First, I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and, if I may reciprocate, he has approached the Bill with a commendable spirit of openness. We on the Opposition Benches hope that that attitude will last.
We, too, have been concerned to strike the balance to which the Minister referred, between the rights of the individual—the appellant—and the interests of national security. We believe that the Bill has struck an appropriate balance and we agree with the framework that it creates. Foremost among our considerations have been the interests of national security, and it was because of our great interest in that subject that we suggested a right of

appeal from the decisions of the commission. We are pleased that the Minister listened to our arguments and that there is at least a right of appeal on points of law. That is a change that we welcome.
I also welcome the Minister's announcement of the appointment of Mr. Justice Potts to be chairman of the commission. In earlier debate, we said that we approved of the general balance among the three members of the commission. We apprehended that it would consist of eminent people and I am sure that Mr. Justice Potts will be an eminent chairman. We wish him well in his work. I should declare something of an interest here, as Mr. Justice Potts and I are members of the same circuit, but I hope that that does not debar me from wishing him well in his endeavours. The cases that the commission hears will be sensitive cases, sometimes involving serious judgments as to national security and the rights of individuals. We wish the commission well in that important work.
Without wishing to inject any note of controversy into the debate, I think that the way in which the Bill has been amended—especially the amendment creating a right of appeal—as it has passed through its stages in another place and in this House holds valuable lessons for us. It is important that legislation of this sort, which ensures compliance with the European Court of Human Rights, should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and debate and is susceptible of amendment. The amendment the Minister has just described illustrates the value of full scrutiny and full debate, which is a point to which we might return during debates on another matter that will come to the House from another place.
I do not want to be controversial at this point, because the Bill has the support of the Opposition. It ensures compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal and it sustains our proud record of complying with that court's judgments. The Bill also does justice to the important considerations of national security and it has our support.

Mr. Richard Allan: I, too, do not want to take up too much of the House's time on a Bill that commands support from hon. Members on both sides. I also thank the Minister for the way in which he has provided information to Opposition Members and made our job of scrutinising legislation more straightforward. That co-operation was much appreciated.
The Bill represents a most sensible response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case and we look forward to a process whereby human rights will be placed at the heart of all our immigration and asylum legislation. We hope that the process of incorporating the convention on human rights into domestic law will help to make that more straightforward, so that changes will be introduced more quickly, instead of their having to go to Europe and then come back again. We look forward to watching the development of the process in our domestic courts as further asylum and immigration legislation is introduced.
I hope that all debates around the Minister's future pronouncements will be similarly uncontentious and constructive and that we shall be able to maintain the habit of talking constructively about immigration and asylum matters. The Bill is a sign of things to come.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I, too, thank the Minister for the way in which he has approached the Bill. Throughout its passage, he has shown consideration and courtesy and his approach has been even-handed and sensible.
I shall make only a few remarks—I might have wanted to made some extensive and lengthy remarks, but it is probably better that I confine myself to taking only a few minutes of the House's time. The Minister knows that I approach this measure from a curious angle, having been involved in the inception of the Immigration Advisory Service, an organisation which gives free legal help and advice to those who have rights of appeal under immigration law.
My remarks may seem slightly slanted owing to my feeling about the need for justice not only to be done, but to be seen to be done. As a result of my concern that some of the worries that I expressed earlier in the Bill's passage have not been fully dealt with, I shall focus on those points for a few minutes tonight.
The Minister will remember that I was worried about clause 5(3)(a), which would allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules
enabling proceedings before the Commission to take place without the appellant being given …particulars of the reasons for the decision".
I thought that that was a troublesome point. It laid the way open for no particulars at all to be given. I thought that it might make the appellant feel slightly handicapped, and that the lawyers might feel that they had one hand tied behind their back. I asked the Minister to comment on that at an earlier stage. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Minister has not come back to me on that point.
Clause 5(3)(b) marginally troubled me at the time. The Minister was very helpful on it in some respects. It says that the rules could
make provision enabling the Commission to hold proceedings in the absence of any person, including the appellant and any legal representative appointed by him".
That really troubled me and I still feel troubled by it, because it could mean that the entire proceedings could take place in the absence of the appellant, his lawyer and the person appointed by the tribunal to represent him. That is an extreme position, but it is possible under the Bill.
As I said on an earlier occasion, it is very difficult for the appointed person, first, to represent the interests of the appellant, which he is required to do under clause 6(1), which specifically says that he should
represent the interests of an appellant".
It is difficult for him to do so in such circumstances. I am not sure that he will be able to. How does clause 6(1) then tie up with clause 6(4), which says that a person so appointed
shall not be responsible to the person whose interests he is appointed to represent"?
I detect a slight clash in the person so appointed being told that he is not responsible to the person whose interests he is supposed to represent, and I remain a little unhappy about it.
One thing has become clear as the Bill has proceeded— that between the appointed person and the appellant there will be no lawyer-client relationship as we all understand

it. I believe also—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that there will be no ability for the appointed person to speak freely and frankly to the appellant or, perhaps worse still, to the retained lawyer. In other words, the appointed person may hear matters that he cannot communicate to the appellant or to the retained lawyer.
It is all very well for the Minister to say, as he did, that
the special advocate"—
the appointed lawyer—
is there to ensure that the rights of the appellant are protected. That is what he is there for and that is what we hope he will do."— [Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1072.]
It is a very fair hope, but I am not sure how the special advocate can protect those rights when, first, he may be absent for all or part of the proceedings, secondly, he is definitely under constraints in his relationships with all the other parties and, thirdly, he cannot draft any grounds of appeal.
I wonder whether my concerns about clause 5(3)(b) have been fully dealt with. I was worried about people's absence from the commission. In Committee, speaking about appeals, the Minister said:
It is unlikely that a point of law would arise in proceedings in which the special advocate alone was acting for the individual.
Why should it not arise? It might well. It is all very well to say that it is unlikely that a point of law would arise in those proceedings where the special advocate alone was acting, but I wonder.
The Minister said:
we do not envisage that during the hearing of evidence both the special advocate and the advocate for the individual would be absent. There would always be someone present.
Would there? I wonder on what basis that might be said.
The Minister continued:
members of the public will be present—for example"—
these are important words—
lawyers, other representatives"—
who might they be?
and members of the defence team."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 November 1997; c. 18.]
I believe the Minister was trying to reassure me, but I return to the Bill, which says plainly that it is possible to hold proceedings in the absence of any person.
I should like to make two short final points before I outstay my welcome.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: indicated assent.

Mr. Malins: I see Labour Members nodding. I had much more to say and I have tried to shorten it to be helpful.
There is provision for asylum cases to be heard in the tribunal and in the commission at the same time in parallel. As I may have said earlier, I have always believed that asylum cases should be hived off to an adjudicator and dealt with entirely separately. A connected point is that it seems to me that the House should ask the Minister for an assurance that if an asylum application not connected with national security is conducted before the commission, such a matter should be heard not in camera but openly.
On an earlier occasion, in another place, there was discussion of the anomaly that might stem from the fact that under article 3 of the European convention on human rights we cannot deport a person who would face torture or other inhumane treatment if deported. Such cases might crop up occasionally before the commission. One can envisage someone appearing before the commission who is to be deported, who is thought to be a serious threat to this country but who, if returned to the country of his origin, would be likely to face torture or inhumane treatment.
Let us suppose that someone comes to the United Kingdom from Libya and is caught with the clearest possible evidence that he is about to commit an atrocity in this country. He fails to carry out the atrocity. Can he quote article 3 of the convention to say that we cannot move him away from this country because if he is sent back to Libya, he will be treated rather unkindly by the leaders of Libya for failure to carry out his duties? That is an odd situation. The man might be here for ever, plus his family, but I suppose we are stuck with that—that is how life is.
I had worries throughout the Bill's passage. The Minister has dealt with them, with me and with the rest of us most courteously. The very fact that I expressed those worries does not take me away from the fundamental point that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, we support the Bill, which is a sensible and sound measure. Subject to my concerns, which I hope do not amount to much, I wish it a very fair wind in the times ahead.

Mr. David Winnick: I shall not detain the House long because, as I explained on Second Reading, my interest is a constituency one. As the House may remember, my constituent, Raghbir Singh, was put in prison. No charges were laid against him. He was in prison for more than a year and the only reason for his release arose from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal case, which is the basis of the Bill.
I said at the time that it was not for me, as a Member of Parliament, to decide the guilt or otherwise of my constituent; I had no means of doing so. I made representations, as any Member of the House would have done in such circumstances. It is a very serious matter indeed for someone to be held in prison without charge: my constituent was in prison for more than a year, but one can imagine the feelings of the person who brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, who was in prison for more than five years.
I have some concern. Like other hon. Members, I recognise that the Bill is undoubtedly an advance. I am pleased that it is, rightly, being brought into law, but one or two matters trouble me. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that it is a very serious matter to deprive a person of a lawyer, and when the Bill says that a person appointed in such circumstances
shall not be responsible to the person whose interests he is appointed to represent
that does tend to go against the grain of the rule of law.
We all recognise—not least myself—that the commission could be dealing with very serious cases involving terrorism. None of us underestimates the dangers and the curse of terrorism; if we were minded to forget, we have only to remember the terrible crime committed in Egypt last week, including the murder of British citizens. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but if we want to act according to the rule of law we must be careful in the way in which we frame the legislation that is the basis of that law.
I want to mention a matter that I did not mention on Second Reading—the membership of the commission. The Bill says that one member of the commission will be a High Court judge, and the Minister told us his name today. Another member will be a person connected with the immigration appeals system—probably the chief adjudicator or a member or the president of the tribunal. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, someone who has been connected with the Security Service will also be a member.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Winnick: Am I wrong?

Mr. O'Brien: Just to clarify the position, the third member will be someone who has experience of dealing with security matters, not necessarily someone who is a member of the Security Service. It may be a past senior civil servant, perhaps from the Home Office or another Department, who has had some experience of dealing with security matters and who knows how those procedures and organisations operate, but it is not, at this stage, envisaged that the person will be a serving member of the Security Service.

Mr. Winnick: I put it clumsily. I did realise that it would be someone with experience of security matters, but it was right that my hon. Friend the Minister corrected me. However, the commission's membership may be such that I am a little concerned—I put it no higher than that— that an appellant will find it difficult, through his or her representative, to persuade the commission that the Home Secretary's decision was wrong. There is no one there to balance it up, as it were, from a civil liberties point of view. I had that concern on Second Reading and I should have expressed it then.
Although, like other hon. Members, I believe that the Bill is undoubtedly an advance, the sort of imprisonment that my constituent suffered should not occur again. For the reasons that I and the hon. Member for Woking have stated, there is reason to feel some concern and some apprehension as to whether justice will be done.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for the constructive way in which they have contributed to the debate. I again thank the spokesmen for the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their contribution and the constructive way in which they have made it.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has spoken in several debates on the Bill and has always raised important and sometimes difficult issues. The rules made by the Lord Chancellor will be subject to affirmative


resolution and the draft of the rules has already been made available to the House. As it makes clear, the powers to limit the rights of appellants will be very carefully exercised. The whole point of the Bill is that the rights of appellants cannot be those that would normally apply in other courts—simply because of the nature of the proceedings with which we are dealing. However, let me try to address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, without taking too long to do it. They are important and should be addressed. Many people would argue that, for lawyers, they are fundamental points.
The hon. Member for Woking raised clause 5(3)(a) and (b). Clause 5(3)(a) provides for proceedings to take place
without the appellant being given full particulars of the reasons for the decision".
That is true in the sense that national security matters that we are seeking to have excluded from the appellant's knowledge will not be disclosed to him at any stage. That is for obvious national security reasons.
There is a legitimate view that that is regrettable, but it is probably necessary. It is part of the difficult balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the state to protect its national security. I do not think that we are ever going to get this entirely right—where we have absolute rights for the individual and still preserve national security. In the Bill, we try to make the most sensible, reasonable and balanced judgment that we can.
On the way in which the special advocate—the appointed person, as he is described in the Bill—will operate, it is right that the lawyer appointed directly by the appellant may not be present during part of the proceedings. He may, of course, be present during the whole of the proceedings because they might take place without having to go into camera. However, we may need to go into camera, so let us deal with that situation.
The appellant's lawyer will then be absent. Under clause 6, the special advocate has an obligation to seek to represent the appellant's interests without taking instructions from him. As I have mentioned in previous debates, that is not completely unprecedented. Perhaps it has never been done on this scale and in this way, but it happens in cases involving people with psychiatric problems and with minors. Their lawyer sometimes has to exercise independent judgment in the way in which he represents that person.
I accept that we are taking it a step further—the special advocate must make a judgment about the way in which the appellant would have wanted his case argued. He will not be expected to take instructions, but he will be sitting through the whole of the proceedings, so he should be fully aware of the case that is being put by the appellant and be able to move forward on that case when he goes into camera. The position may not be ideal—I could not argue that it is—but it is the best balance that we can reach in seeking to protect national security and in ensuring that the appellant has rights consistent with the convention.
The hon. Member for Woking raised the important point of what happens if a point of law arises when the appellant and his lawyer are absent. That is unlikely—I repeat that it is unlikely—because of the very nature of what we are dealing with. The appellant and his lawyer should be absent only when a factual matter relating to national security is in issue, or when something that cannot be disclosed to the appellant or his lawyer arises.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to see when a point of law is likely to arise, but it is not impossible. I envisage that the commission might consider if it wished the Court of Appeal to consider a point of law. It would perhaps raise with the appellant's lawyer whether there was a point of law that could then be referred to the Court of Appeal, so the lawyer might be informed that such a point of law might have come into issue. The commission would have to make a judgment about whether he should be so informed.
If the factual issues of national security did not come into it—if it was just a legal point that happened to arise during the in camera session—there seems no reason why the commission should not say to the appellant and his lawyer, if it felt that it was in the interests of natural justice, that the point had arisen and it might be a matter that they would wish to consider seeking leave for. Leave could then be applied to the commission to take that point of law to the Court of Appeal. In these difficult circumstances, that is the best way I can think of to get around the legitimate objection that the hon. Member for Woking has raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that matters not involving national security would not be heard in camera. I am sorry about the double negative there, but I give him that assurance. It is envisaged that matters would be heard in camera only when there is a need for secrecy for reasons of national security. Other matters would not be heard in camera.
Article 3 is absolute; there is no evasion of it. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Libya. The convention appears to be absolute and the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that it is absolute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) again contributed wisely to our debate. I shall briefly address his concerns. He again referred to his constituent, Mr. Raghbir Singh, on whose behalf he fought a good fight as a constituency Member of Parliament—without, as he says, reaching a judgment about the individual case, but believing that he should fight for his constituent in the proper way, as he always does.
My hon. Friend expressed concern that in the composition of the commission there might not be anyone representing the interests of civil liberties. I am not sure that that is the case. Mr. Justice Potts, whom we have appointed as the chair of the commission, is a judge of some standing, known to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and is regarded as having a balanced judgment in these matters. Also, the person with considerable experience of immigration matters will be a lawyer and, one would hope, would have a great respect for civil liberties. As Lord Denning said, if we are to trust anyone, should we not trust the judges? Some have demurred from that, but the fact remains that lawyers, judges and adjudicators have the experience and the knowledge and should know what natural justice and civil liberties are supposed to be all about. We hope that they would provide some guarantee of the right balance.

Mr. Winnick: Of course the distinguished judge and the person connected with the immigration appeals system will have great expertise. That goes without saying. My reservation is simply that the person who has security knowledge might say, "That may well be so on


immigration matters and on judicial matters, but the Home Secretary would never have dreamed of doing what he has done without great cause to do so." Those who are— rightly—concerned with the national security of the country might be swayed in a particular direction, and there will be no one else to put a counterpoised point of view. If my fears are unfounded, so be it, but I have that reservation, bearing in mind what could well have happened in the case of my constituent and the other case which form the basis of the measure.

Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I understand why he might have concerns. I shall try to provide reassurance. Not only do we have the protection of respectable and highly qualified legal people on the commission, but we have the protection of the convention. The judge and the other members of the commission will know that their role is to seek to achieve a balance between recognising the needs of national security—we hope that no Home Secretary would ever make such an order if there were no proper need for it—and protecting the interests of individuals under the European convention. Part of their role is to ensure that we comply with the proper safeguards that the European convention requires in such cases—hence the judgment in the Chahal case.
Members of the commission will have that balance in mind. At a later stage, if the House approves the convention coming into English law, they would take direct account of all the provisions of the convention in those circumstances. We are moving towards a situation not only where the commission will have the legal basis of natural justice and respect for individual rights, which we hope are inherent in the English and the Scottish legal systems, but in due course, if the House approves it, where we may have the European convention as part of English and Scottish law.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the matters raised in the debate. I thank the House for its indulgence and for its support for the Bill, which I commend.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Plant Varieties Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 6

PROTECTED VARIETY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 37, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 39 and insert
("subsection (4A) below applies. 
(4A) This subsection applies if, before the product was made, any act mentioned in subsection (1) above was done as respects the harvested material from which the product was made and either—

(a) the act was done with the authority of the holder of the plant breeders' rights, or
(b) the holder of those rights had a reasonable opportunity to exercise them in relation to the doing of the act.")

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 6(4) provides for the breeder's right to extend to directly made products, in certain circumstances. Basically, if a plant breeder's right has been infringed in respect of harvested material from which the product is made, and he has not been able to act against that infringement, he should be able to act against the product.
As originally drafted, clause 6(4) came into play only if the product was obtained from harvested material by committing an act requiring the breeder's authority—for example, selling, marketing and importing. It is, however, quite possible for a product to be made from harvested material to which the breeder's right extends, without committing any of the acts that require his authority. The amendment ensures that the breeder can act against infringement of his rights in these circumstances. It also brings the Bill into line with the UPOV convention and the Community regime.

Mr. James Paice: I shall not detain the House long on this or any other amendment, but I shall raise one or two issues of concern. I realise that the Minister has already participated in a full-length Standing Committee debate this morning and is to reply to the Adjournment debate later. He is clearly earning his salary today, so I do not want to test him more than necessary.
I am puzzled by the need for the amendment. The Minister will recall that when we considered the Bill in the summer, in the Committee stage which was taken on the Floor of the House, I pressed him particularly on clause 6(1)(h)—the catch-all phrase, as I called it—which refers to
any other act prescribed for the purposes of this provision.
The Minister said that that was necessary to ensure that everything else could be covered, and he gave one or two examples, yet when Lord Carter spoke to the amendment in the other place, he said:
It is, however, quite possible for a product to be made from harvested material to which the breeder's rights extend, without committing any of the acts in Clause 6(1)."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1997; Vol. 582, c. 827.]


That is what the Minister has just said, but if that is the case, I do not understand why there is the need for the catch-all paragraph (h).
I have a further query about the use of material derived, to which the Minister referred. I am grateful to him for arranging for me to receive the notes on the amendments, but unusually, they threw up a question that is more puzzling than the amendment itself.
I believe that I am entitled to quote from the notes. They refer to an example of a protected variety grown to produce oil, which is used in the manufacture of perfume, although I do not think that the ultimate use of the oil is relevant. It is implied that, effectively, the oil is the end product, and it is the oil to which the breeder's rights would apply. If I have understood that correctly, it casts a very different light on some aspects of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that plant breeders' rights are protected where the plants are used for some form of propagation—whether it be vegetative, for seed or whatever—but not where the plants are sown or planted for commercial exploitation. Yet, in this example, the notes imply that, if the breeder is not able to claim breeders' rights on the sowing of the seed—the reason is not explained—somehow he would have some claim against the oil. I am somewhat confused by that point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation.

8 pm

Mr. Rooker: I am not sure whether I can clarify those points now. If I cannot do so satisfactorily, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members will recall that the Committee stage took place on the Floor of the House in one day. Consequently, there was no Report stage and the other place has dealt with some issues. It has provided some clarification on parts of the Bill, which is implicit in other Lords amendments.
As to the oil issue, I can do no more than refer to the notes on clauses. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to mention those notes, and I think that it is right and proper that Opposition Members should have the same information that I received about the effects of the proposed changes. I do not seek to put those notes on the record because that would take too long and they are not strictly relevant.
The amendment comes into play only if Ministers decide to prescribe products. The oil is the end product, but only if Ministers decide that there are grounds for prescribing the oil. Even then, they can act against the oil only if they have not had the opportunity to act at an earlier stage against the propagation of the material or the harvested material. It is a fall-back position in some ways because the material progresses through different stages before it reaches the point where difficulties may arise. If I have not made the situation as clear as I might, I shall be happy to elucidate in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 38, leave out (", or other") and insert ("and")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The 1991 UPOV convention, which we shall be able to ratify when the Bill is enacted, exempts acts done for private and non-commercial purposes from the breeders' rights. This ensures that amateur gardeners, for example, can continue to take cuttings of protected varieties for their own private use. The Bill as originally drafted referred to "private, or other non-commercial" use. That could be interpreted as permitting the multiplication of large quantities of protected varieties for public rather than private use provided that it is done for non-commercial purposes.
That is not what the convention intended. Lords amendment No. 2 brings clause 8 into line with the convention, and the corresponding provision in the Community plant variety rights regime, by making it clear that an act must be both private and non-commercial in order to fall within the exemption.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

FARM SAVED SEED

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 20, after ("date") insert ("after 30th June 2001")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Farmers who have saved seed of a protected variety before the Bill comes into force may continue to do so without payment until such time as Ministers discontinue the "prior use" exemption by order.
We have emphasised in the House and in the other place that we will not discontinue the prior use exemption until after 30 June 2001. The amendment writes that into the Bill. I was almost prepared to accept a manuscript amendment in Committee during the summer, but that is no longer necessary.

Mr. Paice: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I greatly welcome the agreement that he and his colleagues have reached on this subject. As he said, we discussed the matter in Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that yesterday the Home Secretary accepted a major amendment within minutes of proposing legislation on the European elections, I believe that this is the first amendment proposed by the Opposition in this Parliament to which the Government have acceded. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment—I hope that it is not the last time that that occurs.
It is interesting to observe that the notes on the clause refer to the fact that on Second Reading in another place Lord Carter undertook to address our concerns. They do not mention the similar undertaking that the Minister gave me in Committee—I trust that that does not mean that he ignored that promise. I am grateful to him for agreeing to the amendment, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union and by the industry because it ensures that the exemption will continue at least until the date specified in the amendment, as agreed originally.

Mr. David Kidney: The Minister may recall that I pressed him on Second Reading to amend the Bill, and he said that the matter would be attended to in another place. I was concerned that existing farm saved seed would not become liable to the requirement to pay


equitable remuneration until at least July 2001. I also welcome the amendment and the Minister's support for it. The Minister may recall that I pressed him in verse on Second Reading. It might be fitting if I now

"Thank him for his graciousness
In truth I expected no less.
Here is the message his change will send:
He's an honourable farmers' friend."

Mr. Norman Baker: I am afraid that I cannot follow the verse of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), but I can confirm that the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment. We also welcome the fact that the date of 30 June 2001 will appear on the face of the Bill.
The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats are concerned about the balance in the Bill between the interests of plant breeders and of farmers. I shall return to that subject later, but this amendment is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister remarked generously on Second Reading that we must strike a balance in the Bill. While welcoming the amendment, I ask him to comment about the process of setting a date. There is a balance to be struck in relation to the holders of rights as well as those who are using farm saved seed. Perhaps the Minister might comment on the process and the date upon which he expects the exemption to be ended.

Mr. Rooker: No, I cannot expand on that point. However, it is the first time that I have been described as gracious and as the "farmers' friend". In order to avoid doubt in future, I put on record the fact that the Government will always be willing to consider sensible amendments from wherever they come. As I have said, I was prepared to accept a manuscript amendment over the summer, but it is better to accept the Lords amendment in this place.
I am grateful for the response from both sides of the House—and particularly for the verse of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I hope that the spirit of consensus will continue throughout the rest of tonight's proceedings.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 39, at end insert—

("() Regulations under subsection (7)(a) above may include provision imposing obligations of confidence in relation to information supplied by virtue of the regulations.")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 9(7) enables Ministers to make regulations requiring plant breeders, seed processors and farmers to provide information to each other for the purposes of the farm saved seed provisions in the Bill. The amendment will enable Ministers to impose an obligation on the recipients of information to keep it confidential. If, for example, a farmer discloses that he has planted so many hectares of farm saved seed, the plant breeder receiving

that information can be required to treat it as confidential. This is quite important. I ask the House to approve the Lords amendment.

Mr. Baker: I cannot share the Minister's enthusiasm for the amendment, and I hope to explain why. He will be pleased to know that I do not intend to press for a Division.
Any Government have to be very careful when seeking to restrict the amount of information that is in the public domain. We have seen from the Government—indeed from the Minister himself—a commitment to freedom of information. The Minister will remember that, when we discussed the Bill at lightning speed earlier this Session, I raised a number of matters relating to freedom of information. In response to a point that I made about freedom of information, the Minister said:
This Government plan to introduce a freedom of information Act: we are not in the business of denying access to information that is already available."—[Official Report, 24 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 739.]
I suggest that the welcome statement from the Minister on that occasion is somewhat at variance with the Lords amendment. In itself, it is, perhaps, innocuous, but I wonder what damage would be done—perhaps the Minister will tell us—if the information relating to the examples that he gave earlier, about hectares, fields or whatever, were in the public domain. I do not believe that it would be particularly sensitive or cause great damage, but the Minister may take a different view.
There is a history of secrecy in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which has not served the farmer or the consumer well in recent times. Dare I mention the dread three letters BSE—bovine spongiform encephalopathy? If the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been far more open earlier on that matter, we would not have the crisis that so affects our beef farmers today.
Equally, there are restrictions on pesticide information, and we are told that it is commercially sensitive—the same argument that we are given in relation to the amendment—yet that information is freely available in the United States. There is a tendency, which I detect in the amendment, for the Minister of Agriculture to keep information secret when it does not necessarily need to be. His Government are committed to freedom of information—I am sure that he is as well—but I ask him, through the Minister of State, to have a mind when introducing amendments that will restrict the amount of information available publicly.

Mr. Rooker: Nobody can argue successfully that, since May, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not been more open than in the past in publishing information; in the detail in which information is given in parliamentary answers; in publishing chemical surveillance reports; and in naming brands. Our record is there for everyone to see. That does not mean that every piece of private commercial information should be available to the public, which is the implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
The information to which the amendment refers is not available to my Department. I am in no position to publish information about what farmers have grown. That is commercial information. It is available to the farmer,


the client or to whomever he or she may have rented the land. The Government do not hold that information, so we are not in a position to publish it. If we were it would be totally wrong. It is commercial. It is private, and to that extent it is privileged and would not be covered by any future freedom of information legislation.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

EXHAUSTION OF RIGHTS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 6, line 10, at end insert
(", or
(b) is derived from material which has been so sold or otherwise marketed.")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 6.

Mr. Rooker: The purpose of the amendments is to correct the drafting of clause 10. The breeder should be able to exercise rights only once in a cycle of propagation. If a farmer buys wheat seed to produce milling wheat, the breeder's right should be exhausted at the point of sale of the seed. The initial propagation to produce the commercial crop will be authorised in the sale, and the breeder has no rights over the subsequent crop of milling wheat. The breeder's right will not be exhausted, nor will he have authorised any propagation after the initial propagation.
In other words, the breeder's right is not exhausted where there is further seed production. If, for example, certified first generation wheat seed is sold and used to produce certified second generation wheat, the breeder's right applies to the second generation seed. The amendments ensure that clause 10 accurately reflects that position, as it did not when the Bill was before the House.

Mr. Paice:: May I press the Minister on that point, because it seems that what he just said, which was close to what appears in the notes on clauses, appears to contradict the answer that he gave to me on Lords amendment No. 1? He just said that if a breeder sells seed to a farmer for the production of milling wheat, the breeder's right is exhausted at that point as long as it is used for the production of milling wheat. If the farmer reuses it to breed CI second generation seed, it is not exhausted, but the Minister made it clear, and I quote from the notes on clauses:
The breeder's right does not extend to the product of the seed, i.e. the milling wheat.
However, a few moments ago, on Lords amendment No. 1, the Minister said that the right did extend. I cited the example of oil. He made it quite clear that the right did extend in extremis—I think that the phrase that he used was "a last resort"—to oil in that context. I apologise for pressing the Minister, but the debate has created the question whether the ultimate product carries that liability.

Mr. Rooker: I can only repeat—probably at a slower speed—the second paragraph that I just placed on the

record. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. It is fairly complex, and in some ways esoteric, but it is very important to the breeders and farmers involved. These are draft corrections designed to clarify. The breeder's right will not be exhausted. Nor will he have authorised any propagation after the initial propagation. In other words, the breeder's right is not exhausted where there is further seed production. If, for example, certified first generation wheat is sold and used to produce certified second generation wheat, the breeder's right applies to the second generation seed, but not if it was to produce milling wheat.

Mr. Paice: I understand exactly what the Minister has just said, but I am sure that if he reflects he will find that at odds with what he said earlier, because he said quite clearly that the right could apply in the earlier example of the issue of oil as a matter of last resort. That would imply that, in the case of milling wheat, if the breeder had not been able to get his rights before then, they would still lie on the milling wheat. I must press the Minister to be a little clearer about what appears to be a clear contradiction between the answers that he has given on these two amendments.

Mr. Rooker: I have obtained further clarification, for which I am extremely grateful. The point is that the breeder's right does not extend to the production of the seed, but if there has been illicit propagation—part of this is the policing process—and the breeder has not had the opportunity to exercise his rights, he may do so later, but only if illegal actions have taken place at earlier stages.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Clause 11

DURATION

Lords amendment:No. 7, in page 6, line 35, after ("period") insert
(", not exceeding—

(a) in the case of paragraph (a), 35 years, and
(b) in the case of paragraph (b), 30 years,")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will enjoy my first sentence about this amendment. The amendment addresses concerns about the unlimited powers of Ministers to extend the period of rights by restricting their powers to extend the rights for particular species or groups to five years in total. Effectively, that means that the rights for trees, vines and potatoes may be extended to a maximum of 35 years and the rights for other species or groups may be extended to 30 years in total. I hope that the House will agree with the amendment.

Mr. Baker: I certainly agree with the amendment because it is not dissimilar to one that I moved on 24 June 1997, which appears in Hansard at column 735. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) was claiming that the first Conservative amendments of


the new Parliament have been woven into legislation, I can perhaps claim something similar for a Liberal Democrat amendment.
I am delighted by the efforts of the House of Lords and by the Minister's change of heart. When I first introduced an amendment to restrict the unlimited power of Ministers it was—I would say "rubbished" but that is probably unparliamentary, Mr. Deputy Speaker—comprehensively and strongly rejected by the Minister. He said:
I cannot accept the amendment because it would prevent periods of rights being altered by secondary legislation, which is currently possible under the 1964 Act."—[Official Report, 24 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 736.]
I am delighted that he has found a way of accepting something similar and I am happy to support it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 8, after clause 13, to insert the following new clause—Presumptions in proceedings relating to harvested material—

".—(1) This section applies to any proceedings for the infringement of plant breeders' rights as respects harvested material.

(2) If, in any proceedings to which this section applies, the holder of the plant breeders' rights proves, in relation to any of the material to which the proceedings relate—

(a) that it has been the subject of an information notice given to the defendant by or on behalf of the holder, and
(b) that the defendant has not, within the prescribed time after the service of the notice, supplied the holder with the information about it requested in the notice,

then, as regards the material in relation to which the holder proves that to be the case, the presumptions mentioned in subsection (3) below shall apply, unless the contrary is proved or the defendant shows that he had a reasonable excuse for not supplying the information.

(3) The presumptions are—

(a) that the material was obtained through unauthorised use of propagating material, and
(b) that the holder did not have a reasonable opportunity before the material was obtained to exercise his rights in relation to the unauthorised use of the propagating material.

4) The reference in subsection (2) above to an information notice is to a notice which—

(a) is in the prescribed form,
(b) specifies the material to which it relates,
(c) contains, in relation to that material, a request for the supply of the prescribed, but no other, information, and
(d) contains such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Ministers."

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Mr. Rooker: The House will forgive me if I take a little longer over these amendments. They are three new clauses and, taken together, they address the particular

problems that breeders of vegetatively propagated ornamental plants face in enforcing their rights. I will put that into plain English in a moment.
Ornamental plants are traded to the public through a wide range of retail outlets, including garden centres, supermarkets and by mail order. They are things that we and our constituents buy every week as gifts or to enhance our living rooms.
Ornamental plants, by their very nature, are easy to multiply through, for example, taking cuttings or using modern tissue culture techniques. The products—rose bushes or pot plants—which have been produced legitimately and on which royalty has been paid, can easily be diverted from their proper end use and used for further propagation, without the breeder's authority, as they are traded through a chain to the final consumer.
Illicit propagation, where no royalty is paid, enables less scrupulous traders—there are spivs in our society— to undercut legitimate traders who are operating correctly and fairly. It gives people an unfair advantage. It is similar to the reason why, in due course, we intend to introduce a national minimum wage.
Plants that have been produced through illicit propagation are the same as those produced by authorised propagation—it is, after all, a condition of protection that plants reproduce true to type. Therefore, a plant breeder cannot identify infringing material simply by looking at the plants. He needs to know the source of the plants on sale. If the seller refuses to provide information on where he obtained the plants—those who knowingly trade in illicitly produced protected varieties will almost certainly refuse to do so—the breeder is left with a strong suspicion that his rights are being infringed, but nothing more.
The new clauses provide for plant breeders to issue information notices, in a form prescribed by Ministers in regulations, to people trading in plants or directly made products of protected varieties. Where the trader refuses to provide the information requested within a period specified in the regulations, without reasonable excuse, the clauses require the courts to presume that the material or directly made products to which the notice relates were obtained in circumstances which infringed the breeder's right, unless the defendant can show otherwise. In effect, the burden of proof is reversed in those carefully defined circumstances—I emphasise that they are carefully defined circumstances.
The information to be provided will not be onerous. It will basically be details of the supplier and the amount of material supplied by him. It is reasonable to suppose that anyone selling plants will know whom he bought them from and how many he bought.
The breeder must treat the information obtained in a notice as confidential, except where he uses it to establish whether his rights have been infringed or in infringement proceedings. If the breeder breaches the obligation of confidentiality, the person who supplied the information will be able to bring an action for breach of a duty of confidentiality.
I expect plant breeders to use those provisions in a proportionate and sensible way, in respect of transactions which are in the normal course of business. There should be no question of plant breeders laying siege to local church fetes and bring-and-buy sales, demanding information on the source of plants on the plant stall. I must also emphasise that the clauses do not permit plant


breeders to serve notices on private individuals growing plants in their own gardens, for their own private and non-commercial purposes.

Mr. Paice: The Minister is right to spend a little longer on these new clauses, because they are significant. I congratulate him on using, word for word, the same speech used by the noble Lord Carter when he moved the same new clauses in the House of Lords.

Mr. Rooker: Same Government.

Mr. Paice: Yes, indeed. Two Ministers speaking with the same voice. The Minister without Portfolio has obviously been into the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently.
There is something serious about the amendments and that is the reversal of the presumption of innocence. As we all know, that is well enshrined in English law. A proposal to reverse that is a major step. It is not without precedent, but we must take it seriously and consider carefully whether it is necessary. I am persuaded that it probably is necessary, but there are issues of concern.
The Minister and his noble Friend Lord Carter—I should say our noble Friend because he is an old friend of mine—referred, rightly, to charitable activities, car boot sales, church fetes and so on. He made it clear, as we would expect, that plant breeders should not be roaring round the countryside handing out information notices at every little place that sells plants.
I have no doubt that the Minister's words were well intentioned and that he meant them, but there is nothing that he or I or any other hon. Member can do to stop that happening. I wonder whether he has given any thought to what measures could be taken or what advice or guidelines could be issued to try to prevent that happening. As he implicitly accepts, there would be a major problem for many valuable community activities if that were taking place.
The second issue of concern is imported material. I am sure that the Minister is aware that considerable numbers of ornamental vegetation and plants are produced overseas and that there is a considerable amount of two-way trade between us and other countries, particularly the Netherlands. Somebody who has an information notice served on them could say that the parent material was imported. As the Minister said, because of type reproduction, it can be traced back to the breeder originally, but I wonder whether he can tell the House about the relevance of the international aspect of the trade. It is not clear from the new clauses how that would operate. I do not know whether a breeder would have the authority to seek information from growers abroad from whom it might be claimed that somebody purchased the plants being sold on. That is important, particularly because of the relevance of the Bill, as the Minister reminded us, to the UPOV convention. I hope that he will respond to the two important concerns that I have expressed.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I have an interest in this subject, having previously worked as head of statistics at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridge, which dealt with many of the issues that we are discussing. The institute works mainly with

agricultural varieties, but it has dealt with the propagation of chrysanthemums and associated plant varieties.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the new clauses. They were obviously needed, and he seems to have covered every aspect, including, I am pleased to say, exemption for the car boot sales and church fetes. We all appreciate that. Will my hon. Friend clarify the status of material that has been taken illegally, perhaps from a garden centre, a botanical garden or some other public place, and used as propagating material for private or public use? It would be helpful for people to know that, and to have it put on the record. I hope that I am not putting my hon. Friend in any difficulty. The problem may already be covered by the law.

Mr. Baker: I shall not repeat at length the comments made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), but it is fair to say that the Liberal Democrats agree with the points that she made, and are concerned that a presumption is being built into the legislation that is against the farmer in an unusual way. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems that the voice of plant breeders is heard more loudly than the voice of farmers. I would not say that they have been nobbled, but we are concerned about the balance between the two views. The National Farmers Union has written to most hon. Members who are interested in this matter to show its concern about the way in which the Bill has been loaded against farmers. How often are we presented with loaded presumptions, as we are in this legislation?
I should also like to draw attention to the speech of Lord Carter, which the Minister quoted verbatim. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that he would expect plant breeders to use those provisions in a proportionate and sensible way, but there is no guarantee that they will be so used. We may expect and hope that a fox, let loose in a chicken coop, will behave sensibly, but there is no guarantee that it will. Hon. Members may forgive me if that is not an exact parallel.
It is dangerous to introduce such open-ended legislation, which relies on people to behave reasonably when they could benefit from behaving unreasonably. We require answers from the Minister to the questions that have been asked on this subject.
y other concern, which I also expressed when we debated amendment No. 4, relates to the restriction of information that is implicit in amendment No. 10. I acknowledge that the Minister and his colleagues have been more open. The door to freedom of information has been opened within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and within other Departments, but it has not been opened far enough, and the proof of the pudding will be in the White Paper to be published shortly. I do not want to be antagonistic, but I must say that the Minister's feel for freedom of information may not be the same as the feel within the Department that he inherited. Liberal Democrats are looking to him and his colleagues to ensure that the culture of freedom of information that he wants to achieve is not stymied by the traditions of his Department. It is easy to slip back into habits of secrecy, so I ask them to be on their guard for any such moves.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) referred to the history of the Department. Civil servants


are professional, dedicated people who serve this Government in the same professional, dedicated way in which they have served other Governments. They act on the instructions of Ministers, and it is the current Ministers who have decided to be open.[Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman must take the issue seriously, or we cannot have a proper debate. I ask him to judge us on our performance, and not on his prejudices or what the press cuttings say.
In answer to the final question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I was tempted to say that the Theft Act 1968 would cover that aspect, but that is not the full answer. The status of material that is taken illegally is an important issue. If the plant is a protected variety, it is exempt if it is used for private propagation but, if it has been stolen, it will be covered by the Theft Act 1968. If it is used publicly for commercial propagation, the rights of the plant breeder can be exercised, notwithstanding the fact that the material has been stolen.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that this measure was a reversal of the presumption of innocence, but I am not sure that it goes that far. This is a modest change. I must make it absolutely clear that information notices cannot be handed out for private and non-commercial acts. The notices do not reverse the burden of proof: there have to be court proceedings. The courts will have to deal with that matter, and the burden of proof in the courts will remain: that is not being changed.
I have no doubt that, in due course, Ministers will address that issue when they agree the form to be prescribed in regulations. If there is any abuse of the notices and regulations, we shall alter them.
On the international aspect, the Bill applies to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Paice: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is not usual for hon. Members to make a second speech.

Mr. Paice: I am sorry, I should have spoken with the leave of the House. I wanted to challenge the Minister on the amendments, and I should have intervened while he was speaking.
Will the Minister think again about imports? He rightly said that the law applies only in the United Kingdom but, in the particular circumstances of ornamental plants and the international aspect to which I referred, there is a glaring loophole. Anyone who is served an information notice can simply claim that the original plant was imported.

Mr. Rooker: I shall look into the matter and, if there is a loophole, I shall see what action can be taken. Clearly, action cannot be taken under the Bill, but it may be taken under regulations.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 45

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 18, line 9, at end insert—
("() Before making any regulations or order under this Act, the Ministers shall consult such organisations as appear to them to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment requires Ministers to consult organisations representing those likely to be substantially affected before making orders and regulations under the Bill. We are consulting day in and day out as a matter of routine, so we had no difficulty when we were asked to enshrine this requirement in the Bill in the other place.

Mr. Baker: I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to accept that organisations should be consulted and that he is willing for that to be spelt out in the Bill. That is a welcome step.
I draw attention to the fact that the amendment refers to the Plant Varieties Act 1997. That phrase was introduced in the House of Lords on 23 October this year. That is symptomatic of the fact that the Government have sought to push the Bill through at lightning speed from the moment that they took office in May, even to the extent that they assume in the amendment that it will be on the statute book before the end of the year.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that everyone involved in the industry has been asking for the Bill for many years? It may have been rather dilatory of the previous Government not to have introduced the Bill earlier.

Mr. Baker: I welcome the commitment to consultation, which is the thrust of what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is saying. I shall return to my second point in a moment.

Mr. Paice: The Opposition welcome the Government's decision to include a commitment to consultation in the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government have pursued a line that is usually taken by the Opposition, whoever they may be. The Opposition often demand that a commitment to consultation should be written on to the face of the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for making that commitment.
I am also grateful to the Minister. The Lords amendment is testimony to the open way in which he has handled the Bill throughout. I want to use this speech as a vehicle to thank him for the way in which he has handled the Bill. I regret that it was rushed through the House especially as, as the Minister knows, it was introduced about two days after the Opposition Front-Bench team took on its new responsibilities. We had a fast learning curve, although I realise that that is not unusual on either side of the House, as the Minister well knows. I also thank him for his courtesy in responding to our questions. He has looked for consultation, as is enshrined in the amendment.
I look forward to the Minister's response on one or two of the issues I raised earlier. I thank him for everything he has done and I am happy to support the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 18, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) In Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in the entry relating to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, for the words after "Tribunal" there shall be substituted "(referred to in section 39 of the Plant Varieties Act 1997)".")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13.

Mr. Rooker: These are purely consequential amendments.

Mr. Baker: These consequential amendments also refer to the Plant Varieties Act 1997. I shall continue to develop the point I made in my speech on Lords amendment No. 11. I want to express Liberal Democrat Members' regret that the Bill has been rushed through Parliament. I know that the Government and the official Opposition do not regard the Bill as controversial, but we do.
I hope that hon. Members understand that the assumption built into the amendment that the Bill will be enacted by the end of the year shows that the Government were determined to railroad through the Bill. The matter was drawn to the Minister's attention on Second Reading not only by Liberal Democrat Members, but by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I suspect that the Minister does not welcome my contributions on the Bill.
I remind the Minister that the Bill will enable up to five American biotechnology companies to control about 80 per cent. of the staples that we eat, within five years. The world market for genetically altered seeds will reach US $7 billion by 2005.
I remind hon. Members of the words of Vandana Shiva in "Future of our Seeds". The author concludes:
Transnational companies will decide what is grown by farmers, what they use as inputs, and when they sell their produce, to whom and at what price.
The Minister will say that the Bill is purely about patents. In a sense, he is right, but the implications go further. Rather than rubbishing what I have said, as I think that he may do, I hope that he accepts that the Bill has serious implications. The Government should think carefully about ensuring a fair balance between the interests of farmers and consumers and those of the biotechnology companies.

Mr. Rooker: There will never be a time when anyone can accuse me of not being full and frank with hon. Members. I spoke very briefly to the amendment. I raised

the hon. Gentleman's point in a previous incarnation many years ago. I suspect that the Bill will be passed tonight to become the Plant Varieties Act 1997. He may be shocked to learn that, if Royal Assent takes place in 1998 for some reason, the House authorities will alter the relevant passages so that they refer to the Plant Varieties Act 1998.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Schedule 1

THE PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 20, line 10, after ("may") insert
("with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service")

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill provides for the pay and allowances of staff of the Plant Variety Rights Office to be determined by Agriculture Ministers jointly—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friends in the territorial Departments. The amendment provides for the Act to be subject to the consent of the Minister with responsibility for the civil service, which is appropriate.
As this is probably the last time I shall speak in the debate, I thank hon. Members for their courtesy and support over the summer. This is the first Bill that I have taken through the House, although not having had a Committee stage upstairs, I freely admit that I have not been truly blooded as a Minister.
I sincerely thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Between the appointment of his new Front-Bench team in June and the debate on Lords amendments, there has been a change to the team, but not one that involves him. I am grateful for what he has said.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 26, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert ("Part I")

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 16.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are purely technical, concerning repeals, which are listed as a necessary consequence of the passage of the Bill into an Act.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Sittings)),

That, at the meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee on Thursday 11th December,—

(1) the Committee shall consider the matter of public expenditure in Northern Ireland in 1998–99;

(2) at the completion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(l)(/i).—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Over-30-months Scheme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Paul Keetch: I am delighted to be able to open my first Adjournment debate. In a week when all eyes in Parliament will focus on a private Member's Bill to ban the hunting of foxes, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the slaughter of almost 2 million cattle. That is the number so far slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme. In fact, since April 1996, the total amount is 1,772,000 cattle. That is an incredible number of slaughtered animals—all because of politicians' errors.
The OTMS was of course an attempt to restore public confidence in the beef herd following the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which came to a head on 20 March 1994. The then right hon. Member for Loughborough, now the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), announced a possible link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I have no doubt, representing, as I do, a largely rural constituency, that the management of that crisis cost the former Government hugely on 1 May. The right hon. Gentleman may have escaped the cull of Tory Members of Parliament by moving constituency, but thousands of cattle, of course, did not. The crisis really began in 1988, when BSE was made a notifiable disease. Tonight, I shall restrict my comments to the OTMS.
The OTMS determined that cattle over 30 months old would no longer be able to enter the human or animal food chains. When introduced, it paid farmers compensation of 1 ecu—which was then rated at 85.6p— a kilo liveweight for cows and clean cattle. Since then, however, there has been a steady decline in the amount of compensation paid.
The Tories cut compensation from 1 ecu to 0.9 ecu in October last year. With the growing strength of the green pound, by July compensation had fallen, in real terms, from 85.6p a kilo to just 64.9p a kilo. It is now just 55.7p a kilo. That is because the new Government have also made cuts. First, they cut the rate for cows to just 0.8 ecu and then they imposed an arbitrary maximum weight of 560 kg an animal. Therefore, whatever the weight of a cow for slaughter under the OTMS today, it would be worth only £312. If it were destroyed for being tuberculosis-ridden, the same animal would be worth £580. That is surely not equitable.
We all understand the terrible cost to the Exchequer and the nation of the BSE crisis. I know that the Minister and his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have inherited an enormous problem, and they are dealing with it very positively, but by trying to shift the cost of the crisis to farmers, they are adding to the pain that has already been inflicted.

Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate, especially as I also represent an area that is heavily dependent on farming. He has identified the crux of the matter. There has been a change of Government. The Labour Government are blaming the previous Conservative Government for negligence in not bringing


forward a scheme that could get us back into the European market, which they are genuinely right to do. However, it seems somewhat unfair that the farmers are paying the price for Government negligence. The party in government may be different, but the Government have an inherited responsibility to take on the burden of the previous Government's negligence and not to pass it to farmers. Ministers should illustrate to the Treasury that this seems a classic case for the contingency reserve. It is a short-term contingency crisis for which the farmers are paying the price—when the Government should be paying.

Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution to the issue, as he always does. He is absolutely right.
It should be remembered that cattle farmers have not been equally affected. Dairy farmers, for example, did not have their principal product—milk—dramatically affected by the BSE crisis. Of course, beef farmers did. It is an unfortunate twist of fate that beef farmers who produce prime, distinct herds, such as Hereford herds, have found their businesses most affected. That relates to the fact that, in 1988, the ban on exports began. In August, the imposition of the maximum weight especially affected the bigger beef animals.
The catastrophe of beef herds has not ended. The Government have been suggesting in some quarters that they might exempt steers altogether from the OTMS. There is talk of a £10 charge being levied on cattle passports. Incidentally, it is sad that Northern Irish beef has not been able to be re-exported this week. The dramatic effect is that that underlines the fact that any passport or tagging system that is introduced must have the confidence of our European partners. I stress that to the Government. I am glad of the positive way in which they are dealing with Europe, in contrast to the previous Administration. The British beef industry cannot afford a system that nobody believes in.
It is not just the compensation package that has affected farmers in rural areas. Since the introduction of the scheme, the number of abattoirs available for use in the OTMS has been cut from some 50 to just 29. Many abattoirs were worried about the tendering procedure, and I know from experience in Herefordshire that some decided not to bother to tender. The fact that we now have half the number of abattoirs has reduced flexibility for farmers and has dramatically increased the time and length of the cattle's last journey.

Mr. David Drew: I was with a group of farmers yesterday, and I raised that very point with them. They assured me that the geographical spread of abattoirs was done in such a way that they did not face a significant problem. Admittedly, those farmers were mainly dairy farmers, but they were also affected by the scheme. I would ask you to check your facts, because the farmers do not face the problem that you allege.

Mr. Keetch: I am not sure which constituency the hon. Gentleman represents, but I can tell him that Hereford does not have a single abattoir. In Wales, there are only

two abattoirs—one on Anglesey and one in Cardigan. If you are suggesting that that is a geographical spread for the Principality, you clearly do not know Wales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Both hon. Gentlemen have used the word "you". I am not responsible, and I should be grateful if they would try to use our normal parliamentary language.

Mr. Keetch: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—who unfortunately cannot be here tonight because of parliamentary business—conducted a survey of markets in the south-west, which might be helpful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). My hon. Friend found from his local market in Frome that, in the first week in November, almost 60 cattle were sent to either Birmingham or Kent. Cattle from Salisbury and Shaftesbury markets were also sent to Kent, and cattle from Chippenham ended up in Essex. That is hardly a fair distribution of the abattoirs, and I urge the Government to reconsider their number and geographical spread. The Government should reopen the tendering procedure and cut the time and cost of those poor animals' last journeys.
Most poignant of all is the fate of the so-called casualty cows, some of which are forced to travel hundreds of miles to be dealt with. Farmers used to be able to issue a section 18 certificate, effectively self-certifying casualty cows, but that has been ended. Vets are now required to issue a certificate, which costs between £30 and £40. However, the certificate is valid for only 24 hours and, with waiting lists at some abattoirs of up to two weeks before cows can be dealt with, repeat certificates are almost always needed. Not even the excellent British farmers can anticipate a casualty cow two weeks in advance. The practice is a national disgrace, and the Government must end it now.
In addition, the huge costs of storage of the specified bovine material that has resulted from the OTMS are still growing. Much of it goes into cold storage to wait for incineration, because there are not enough incinerators powerful enough to destroy all possible traces of BSE. Although attempts are being made to build more incinerators, the efforts are being blocked by local councils.

Ms Julia Drown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that those involved in considering sites for storage look for the safest methods and buildings and ensure that the most up-to-date precautions are followed? Local residents must be assured that the risks are minimised, but I fear that that does not always happen at the moment.

Mr. Keetch: The hon. Lady makes a valid point, and she is right to say that we must consider the safest way to approach the incineration of the products. I am sure that she, like the Liberal Democrats, does not wish to increase the scare stories that surround BSE.
Since the subject of my Adjournment debate was announced last week, I have been inundated with stories about what happens to the waste products from the OTMS. I have been told of fields in Staffordshire on which, allegedly, some 50,000 gallons of such waste are


spread every day. The Environment Agency is concerned about that practice, but the Government must act. We are also told of carcases that apparently carry no risk of BSE being used as landfill waste.
It seems to me, and to many of my hon. Friends, that the present Government, having inherited the problem from the previous Administration, simply do not know what to do with the results and leftovers from the OTMS. They must assure us that all the waste will be either stored safely or dealt with properly. We need a little more transparency and information on the subject, if we are not to have more problems with scare stories.
I want to ask the Minister several specific questions. For example, how long will the OTMS last? Will it, and the calf scheme, last as long as the crisis? How many cows do the Government expect will be processed through it, and do they believe that that number will decline? The Government must also give us assurances about beef imports into Britain. We hear rumours about beef from Russia coming here, and we need guarantees that any beef imported into the United Kingdom has had all specified risk material removed.
During the scheme's existence, the rural communities of Britain have suffered enormously. A recent survey conducted in the county of Hereford and Worcester, for example, suggested that 256 jobs have been lost simply in businesses that supply or buy from farms. Those jobs were not even on farms. Of the firms approached, 56 per cent. said that they had lost business directly during the OTMS, as a result of the BSE crisis. Only 4 per cent. said that they had gained extra business from it.
The Government must also understand that the rural communities are suffering the growing problem of bovine TB. We cannot afford to lose our TB-free status, and I welcome the Minister's efforts to ensure that the Krebbs report will be published shortly.
My hon. Friends and I wish the Government well in their dealings with the rural communities, and in their attempts to end the export ban and to restore confidence. We wish them well in their attempts to breathe new life into the British beef industry. The farmers of Herefordshire, indeed the farmers of all of Britain, deserve that respect. I hope that the new Government will not let them down.

9 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on his first Adjournment debate, and the way in which he put the case for the beef industry, throughout which the name of his constituency, of course, resonates. It is a beautiful part of the world, which I often visit.
Certainly there is a case to be made, which the hon. Gentleman put succinctly. I must tell him that I would need a little more of what my learned friends call "further particulars" for some of the allegations that have been made before I could promise to take action. Nevertheless, I appreciate the force of his argument.
I shall first try to deal with some aspects of our policy. I do not want to take too long and try the patience of the House, but the issue is important. The Government

welcome the opportunity for the debate. We have no problems about debating such issues, although they are difficult. We understand the fact that thousands of people have been affected, and that BSE and all its implications are costing the taxpayer a fortune—more than £1 billion this year and, we estimate, £4 billion in total. That is an enormous sum, and we must account for it.
It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is interested not only in the operation of the over-30-months scheme—in the jargon, it is called the OTMS, but I shall try to avoid using that term—but in the policy that drives it, a policy for which we must be accountable.
I shall give a brief rundown of some of the rationale behind both the policy that we inherited and the policy that we are now conducting. The over-30-months scheme provides for the slaughter—the killing—and destruction of cattle over 30 months. That is not to say that all cattle are slaughtered when they reach 30 months. Obviously, many milkers are older than 30 months, but when they have finished their working lives, if they are older than 30 months, they will not go into the human food chain.
That decision went well beyond the independent advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to de-bone cattle in licensed plants supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service. Contributory factors were the views of retailers and catering establishments, which were reluctant to sell over-30-months meat, and those of farmers' representatives, who were keen for the Government to intervene.
Compensation and disposal arrangements were established in European Union regulations in April last year. Maintenance of the scheme is now a precondition of the Florence agreement for lifting the export ban on beef and cattle. Therefore, it is important to remember that the Government cannot unilaterally change the scheme. It is not within the competence of this Government or this Ministry to change the scheme, the conditions or the compensation arrangements, which are enshrined in EU regulations.
Changes have been relatively few and they have to be proposed by the European Commission and approved by EU member states. Most of the changes in the sterling value of compensation payments have not been achieved through regulation, but are attributable to fluctuations in the green pound, which I hope will be the subject of another debate.
The scheme is very expensive. The over-30-months destruction of cattle scheme is the single most expensive part of the BSE crisis. Scheme expenditure in the last financial year amounted to some £870 million. The budget forecast for the four years from April 1996 is £1.8 billion. Therefore, expenditure on all BSE-related measures over those four years is forecast to be £4 billion, and more than half of that is for the scheme.
I must also remind the House that the EU contributes only to the cost of compensating farmers for the lost opportunity to market the over-30-months animals. The remainder of the compensation bill plus the full cost of slaughter, rendering, storage and in due course the ultimate destruction of cattle entering the scheme is borne by the British taxpayer.
The significant costs have created difficulties for the Government this year—difficulties that the previous Administration also discovered. As in so many areas of life, the previous Administration left insufficient


provision in the budget for this year. As everyone knows—I do not intend to argue this at length—we are committed to maintaining the overall public expenditure programme of the previous Government.

Sir Robert Smith:: When we meet Ministers, they explain that when they took over and opened the cupboards, they discovered that the previous Government had been negligent in even starting to address a scheme that would get us back into the European market. Now that the negligence of the previous Government has been discovered, why are the farmers having to pay the price?

Mr. Rooker: It is not just the farmers who are paying the price, but the whole of the food industry. The beef industry is certainly paying the price throughout the chain—in transport and retail—for the BSE crisis. There is no question about it, and we are not seeking to hide the fact that an unfair burden has been placed on the beef industry as a result of the BSE crisis—far from it. As I said, the financial constraints within which we are working are well known, and we make no apology, because they were made clear. The fact of the matter is that if provisions are not made, the expenditure cannot be made.
The costs are escalating. We have had to go to the Commission to get agreement to revise the compensation arrangements. Those discussions resulted in the changes introduced on 4 August, which we debated before the summer recess. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to detail all of them tonight. We recognise that those changes have affected farmers' incomes, particularly those of beef farmers, who have traditionally produced animals with a higher value at slaughter than dairy cows would command. However, we had no real alternative but to introduce some financial discipline into this demand-led scheme.
Ministers have gone to considerable lengths to explain our policy to farmers and their representatives. There are no easy options. We have offered the industry an opportunity to produce alternative proposals for a better distribution of the money that is available. That offer has been made throughout the industry. So far, we have not received any suggestions. Certainly, the National Farmers Union has not submitted any alternative proposals. That is not a criticism, but merely a statement of fact. Others have suggested alternatives, none of which is, in our view, practical, cost neutral or successfully negotiable in Brussels.
Some have suggested paying greater compensation on beef cows or removing the weight limit on them, but there are considerable problems in identifying suckler cows and policing a scheme offering different rates. Others have suggested removing steers and, possibly, heifers from the scheme. We agree. Farmers have had more than 18 months to adjust to the production and marketing system, so that they can sell clean cattle at prices well in excess of over-30-months scheme compensation allowances.
It is a source of bewilderment why farmers sometimes leave cattle until they are in the over-30-months scheme, when they could have been sold on the market and gained a higher price. Unfortunately, the Commission does not agree with our idea for a scheme to be restricted to cull

animals. The over-30-months scheme is likely to be around in some shape or form for some time to come. By that, I mean some years to come.

Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister confirm that the Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy are based on the assumption that the over-30-months scheme ends at the end of 2001? If that is the case, does it tie in with any of his expectations about the timing of the lifting of the ban?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to the second question is no. I have seen no exit date for the over-30-months scheme. I do not think that it is tied to Agenda 2000 in the specific way that the hon. Gentleman asked about. It is a reasonable point, because by then there should be no reason to continue the scheme, as our best scientific advice is that BSE will be eradicated by that date. This year it is occurring at 40 per cent. of last year's rate; last year, it occurred at 40 per cent. of the previous year's rate; and that year it occurred at 30 per cent. of the year before's rate. It is a dramatic, exponential decline. Fewer than 100 cattle a week on average are now diagnosed with BSE.
There are other aspects to the lifting of the ban. I and my ministerial colleagues have said before that the Florence negotiations are so imprecise that it becomes a moving target simply to know whether we have met the preconditions. That is extremely difficult. The previous Prime Minister was the last person to offer advice to the present Prime Minister about negotiating skills in Europe, considering the Florence agreement on lifting the ban.
We have an open mind on alternative compensation arrangements. If someone is prepared to come to Ministers with a cost-neutral scheme that we can put to Brussels, which must be the final arbiter, we shall consider it positively and confidently. We are keen to find practical alternatives.
The hon. Member for Hereford spoke at some length, understandably, about operational matters. Many people have been critical of the decision to reduce the number of abattoirs working on the over-30-months scheme. I have visited only two cattle abattoirs—both on the same day— since I became a Minister. The first was fairly small, and it was the owner's last day of working on the over-30-months scheme.
The owner did not whinge, but told me what he had lined up for the following week and how he would move his facilities around and be positive for the future. That is not to say that the scheme did not cause him problems, but he was wholly positive in his approach: a really can-do abattoir owner. I was pleased, because I understand that others are less can-do. I shall not embarrass the gentleman in question by mentioning the abattoir that I visited.
We keep an open mind, but there is no possibility of additional funds. Our expenditure on BSE is considerable. We cut the number of abattoirs because the Intervention Board put the issue out to tender. I sat through many statements from the previous Government about what happened when the scheme was first introduced, and the costs of the scheme and the payments to the renderers.
We currently have 29 abattoirs working for the over-30-months scheme, following the tender. The tender exercise is there to get best value for money for the


taxpayer. We expect it to yield savings of more than £12 million in a full year, and that is not to be sniffed at. The key point is that, while contracted abattoir capacity has reduced, so has demand for the scheme. The backlog of animals awaiting entry to the scheme was eliminated about the turn of the year, leaving capacity well in excess of throughput. Contracts awarded by tender carry more than sufficient capacity for the number of animals expected to enter the scheme in most weeks of the year. Additional capacity is factored in as necessary to deal with increased seasonal demand—

Mr. Keetch: The competitiveness of the abattoirs is not in doubt; nor is the fact that they may not have tendered. What is in doubt is their geographical spread.

Mr. Rooker: Oddly enough, I was just coming to that. Some journey times have inevitably increased, with fewer abattoirs working for the scheme. However, we have no evidence that animals are travelling further than they were before the OTMS was introduced. Indeed, some are travelling shorter distances. The anecdotal evidence that I have shows that, much to my amazement, animals have always travelled hundreds of miles to slaughter. They have never gone to the nearest abattoir. Nevertheless, we do not seek to force farmers and animals to travel further than is good for the health of the animals on their final journey to death and rendering—[Interruption.] Let us not beat about the bush: it is their final journey. Those journeys perform no function for the human food chain; they are a tragic waste of good, healthy BSE-free animals.
We believe that the contracts awarded provide a good geographical spread, with more capacity around the main cattle-producing regions. Where no acceptable bids were made in a particular region, the Intervention Board had no alternative but to provide sufficient capacity in neighbouring regions. Just because there is no abattoir in the wonderful county of Hereford, that is not to say that there is none just across the border. There is one in Bromsgrove and another in Bristol. Between them, they can kill 1,700 animals a week in normal conditions. Both plants recently had their permitted weekly kill increased to reflect seasonal demand. The Intervention Board is not aware of access problems at either plant.
The hon. Gentleman has made representations about a particular abattoir in Hereford, but as Ministers have explained, it did not submit a bid for tender, so under the terms of the contracts, and for reasons of value for money and fairness to those who did bid, the case was not made.
The hon. Gentleman alluded to the proposed £10 charge for cattle passports. I would ask people to read what we say. They will cost between £5 and £10. We are trying to keep the price as low as possible. It is not so much a charge for the passport as part of the funding of the British cattle movement service, which in turn is part of the computerised traceability system for every animal in the country, under the Florence agreement. As always, we seek the most cost-effective option—we do not seek to impose on people. When we made our recent announcement, we thought it right to give farmers an idea of what the costs would be.

Mr. Paice: I accept what the Minister has just said about the cost of cattle passports, but will he give an

undertaking to the effect that the final cost will amount to no more than the true audited cost of running the system? There must be no question—this is suspected in many farming circles and in the farming press—of the Treasury gaining. I repeat that the cost to farmers must be no more than the cost of running the system.

Mr. Rooker: That is a legitimate question. I alluded to that subject only as a courtesy to the hon. Member for Hereford, who mentioned it in his speech.
I have not come here to make any statements—all I can say is that we shall make statements in due course when the decisions have been made. It is not our intention to impose unnecessary burdens on the industry; by and large, it is the industry that gains from the setting up of the computerised cattle tracing system. We hope to have it up and running on target, although we have made changes, even since my announcement in August, as to the way in which it will be paid for through the passport. We have considered many options, as did the previous Government. I cannot go beyond what I have already said, but I promise that we shall make an announcement in due course and be fully accountable for it to the House.
The hon. Member for Hereford and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) raised the issue of storage. Speaking now without the benefit of brief, I believe that it is not true to say, as the hon. Gentleman said, that most of the over-30-months cattle are in cold storage. By far the minority are in cold storage; the vast majority have been rendered into meat and bonemeal. These days, the blood is rendered as well—I would need further and better particulars to accept the notion that there is a field somewhere in Staffordshire on which 50,000 gallons of blood have been sprayed.
The rendered remains are being stored in safe, environmentally approved dwellings around the country, all of which are subject to planning permission. The stores are usually in old warehouses and factories and not, generally speaking, in heavily built-up areas. I cannot account for all of them, but I did visit one. I said, "A picture is worth a thousand words—I have to see what a few tonnes of bonemeal look like." I visited an old factory up north near Chorley, where 17,000 tonnes are stored and there is capacity for another 15,000 to be stored safely, with full planning permission. Nowhere that is being used has not been approved.
We currently hold vast tonnage in stock. I can illustrate how much quite well because, over the summer, I said to my officials, "I shall be quoting figures of hundreds of thousands of tonnes to the House. I need to know what it looks like and what is the scale—how many London buses?" They had already worked out an answer, which is that the volume of bonemeal is the equivalent of 32 Big Bens—it is bigger than Westminster Hall. We are required to dispose of those rendered carcases. A small percentage of the animals go directly for incineration and we are trying to use that as the main means of disposal, because it reduces transport needs and so on.
All the storage facilities are subject to planning permission. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions do not impose extra burdens on local authorities or on the Environment Agency—all the checks and balances are already there. We are not trying to cut corners. Nevertheless, there is now a substantial amount


of bonemeal and tallow—more than 100,000 tonnes of tallow—to be disposed of. It is all stored securely and none is being dumped on landfill, as the hon. Gentleman alleged. The only use of landfill is for farmers to dispose of fallen cattle, which is perfectly legal, provided that farmers do it properly and take all necessary precautions. There are no over-30-months cattle or BSE cattle going into landfill: if there are, that is a breach of all the regulations and we will take the most rigorous action against anyone caught bending the scheme in that way. I really mean that.
I give an assurance to the House that we are looking for safe means of disposal. Ministers are actively considering what to do with the bonemeal and tallow. We are not complete masters in the matter—we require approval from our European partners—but we hope to make an announcement as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Nine o'clock.